This week Politico reported that Trump administration plans to save aging coal and nuclear plants have stalled in the absence of clearly identified financial backing. Some speculated the cost burden would fall squarely on the shoulders of customers – potentially bearing an annual price tag of $9.7 billion to $17.2 billion.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry argued the price tag is well worth the infrastructure resiliency afforded by coal and nuclear power plants which are capable of storing months of fuel.
All five of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) members countered there is no emergency justification for the bailout and that the unprecedented federal intervention could lead to an unraveling of wholesale power markets.
Sustained by shared opposition from Trump’s advisers on both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council, without significant tolerance for price increases to pay for the plan, it’s possible as the list of coal and nuclear plants under bankruptcy grows, Trump is quietly walking back his support for coal’s Hail Mary – at least for now.
All five members of FERC, the regulatory group responsible for the U.S. power grid, stated there is nothing to suggest an forthcoming emergency in the country’s electricity markets. Their testimony before Tuesday’s Senate hearing could undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to save ailing coal and nuclear plants through subsidies. Many of the plants have closed or signaled closure in the face of plentiful natural gas, growth in wind and solar power, and stagnant power demand.
Electricity customers would see their rates rise if Energy Secretary Rick Perry moves to save financially struggling coal and nuclear plants, but Ohio utility FirstEnergy, which requested the move, would benefit, credit ratings giant Moody’s said Thursday.
As the Rio Olympics come to a close. The USA is currently leading the medal count amongst all competing nations. From the surface things appear to be going smooth, besides this Lochte issue. However, the preparation to the games was and still remains questionable at best.
Concerns about Brazil’s preparedness to host these Olympics have been rampant in the media. The concerns have centered around the Zika virus, dirty waters, unfinished arenas and living quarters, and dangerous corruption throughout the country. So how did Brazil win the bid back in 2009?
When Rio won the bid national growth was strong and Brazil was in good standing. Under those circumstances it made sense, but things have changed with government corruption and an economic slump causing hardship across the country. One of the more recent tragedies occurred with the collapse of the Tim Maia bike path, which was a legacy project of the Olympics. The $12.6 million path came crashing down killing two people. Engineers concluded that poor engineering was to blame and rushed work throughout the country.
A key factor of the economic hardship is the change in natural resource extraction. Brazil’s economic boom prior to the games was driven by industries like mining. However, mining is proving to be an ecological problem which has stopped much of the work throughout the country. The Bento Rodrigues mine tailings dam burst near the city of Mariana in November 2015 and alerted many to the severe risks. The incident was Brazil’s biggest ecological disaster, and the responsible companies are facing a $44 billion civil lawsuit, in addition to criminal charges.
Brazil could focus on dams for energy but Brazil also experiences droughts and transmission problems, risking the likelihood of rolling blackouts as reservoirs dry up. Additionally, many of the bids for these projects are corrupt. Belo Monte is a project that was supposed to be a flagship for Brazil’s “green development” agenda. Current investigations have made clear that the bid for the project involved corruption in everything from the construction bidding process to the purchase of equipment, including around $45 million in campaign donations to Brazil’s major political parties
As we watch these games Brazil is in the world’s view. They face a crisis in re-evaluating their development trajectory. What will they do to change the economic development, their energy sources, and their environmental issues?