×

Energy policy sparks nerves

Plan for coal-fired plants could hurt 2nd Lordstown power station

Tribune Chronicle / Renee Fox William Siderewicz, president and founder of Clean Energy Future, which has a stake in the Lordstown Energy Center under construction on Henn Parkway in Lordstown, said he is nervous about President Donald Trump’s administration’s inclination to preserve coal-fired plants.

WARREN — As construction of the Lordstown Energy Center moves toward its targeted open date in September, one of the people responsible for it is growing nervous about President Donald Trump’s administration’s inclination to preserve coal-fired plants.

William Siderewicz, who controls a 4 percent stake in Clean Energy Future-Lordstown, which owns the Lordstown Energy Center, said the threat of federal subsidies to coal-fired power plants could have a chilling effect on his plans for a second natural gas-powered electric plant.

“If someone is subsidized, the value for your electricity goes down,” said Siderewicz. “Then people don’t want to invest. It could have a horrible, dampening effect on the new gas-fired plant.”

A proposal by the U.S. Department of Energy to bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants was rejected in January by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which said in its decision that despite claims by the administration, there’s no evidence any past or planned retirements of coal-fired power plants pose a threat to reliability of the nation’s electric grid.

Even so, the Republican-controlled five-member commission said it will review the resilience of the nation’s electric grid and requested information within 60 days from regional transmission organizations and independent system operators that oversee the grid.

The sought-after plan was to compensate power plant owners that maintain a 90-day fuel supply protected against severe weather and other disruptions, a feature shared by coal and nuclear power. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power have far less storage capacity.

Even after the rebuke, a leaked memo in late May from the energy department indicated the administration may attempt to use a national security law to halt the retirement of coal-fired plants across the U.S. The assertion was coal-fired plants are essential to the resiliency of the nation’s power grid.

The Defense Production Act would allow the granting of subsidies without congressional approval.

Mike Cope, president of the Ohio Coal Association, said the administration is simply slowing down to take a look at coal-fired plants.

“Once a coal plant closes, it’s very expensive to reopen,” said Cope, who added that the coal industry believes in the free market system and doesn’t particularly like subsidies.

Siderewicz is adamant in his opposition to the subsidies, saying there is no national security threat to the power grid that would justify subsidizing coal.

“This entire plan is fatally flawed and stupid,” said Siderewicz. “It’s coming from someone (Secretary of Energy Rick Perry) who has no idea how the real world of natural gas works.”

Siderewicz also said consumers will suffer if struggling power plants are “bailed out” by the government.

According to him, if a subsidy package were to be approved, Ohio residential electricity bills would increase 25 percent, or $31 per month. Business and industry would be forced to pay an additional $3.4 billion annually, he said.

But a report from Energy Ventures Analysis paints a different picture. The cost of keeping at-risk coal plants running is $130 million annually, far less than the $2 billion it would cost consumers if at-risk coal plants were closed.

Cope said there are advantages to using coal that natural gas can’t match, like having coal on hand at a plant and not needing to transport coal through pipelines. Cope also noted pipes can freeze and can even be hacked.

While Siderewicz opposes subsidies for coal-powered plants, he admitted the gas industry receives some preferential tax treatment, a fact he attributes to the youth of the gas industry relative to the older coal sector.

“There was probably a time when coal got that kind of tax treatment,” said Siderewicz. “When we are looking to grow an industry, the government can use the tax code to spur innovation.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
     

Starting at $4.85/week.

Subscribe Today