Vistra Energy Says Coal Won't Come Back

Report post

Vistra CEO is all over the news lately, giving a bunch of interviews after the company shut down its coal-fired plant in Texas and started investing in solar. CEO is saying that coal isn't coming back and can't compete, not first and foremost with renewables, but with nat gas. But Vistra's shift is working. Investors like it. Stock is up a lost year-on-year and still trending upwards. 

 

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 8.08.46 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

not so fast. It looks like that WH  is looking into a Cold War–imposed statute to prop up U.S. coal plants. The administration is considering implementing the 68-year-old Defense Production Act to bolster long-struggling coal and nuclear power plants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

I just can't imagine Trump, sitting in office tweeting, and out of blue, remembers the Defense Production Act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

Just now, Stephen said:

I just can't imagine Trump, sitting in office tweeting, and out of blue, remembers the Defense Production Act

I am sure that even coal industry lobbyists have forgotten this bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

20 minutes ago, Nigerian Price said:

I am sure that even coal industry lobbyists have forgotten this bill

Unlikely. The act has been invoked on a number of occasions, and the provisions in that act that define energy as a “strategic and critical material” were actually added some years ago, not back in 1950. I can't imagine anyone in the energy lobbying industry being unaware of this act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

A bit disingenuous to make it sound as if someone pulled this Act out of the Wayback Machine or that it is being stretched to a purpose that is not intended. It was amended as recently as October 2009, the amendment which reads in part:

"Authorizes the President to provide subsidy payments on any domestically produced material other than an agricultural commodity as necessary to ensure that supplies are continued or that maximum production or supply is maintained." and

"Removes a limitation on the authority of the President to engage in the production of energy other than synthetic fuel."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/1677

I'm not saying it should be used to keep coal alive--but it doesn't seem like in my layman pea-brain that this is unorthodox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

1 hour ago, Hajga Loma DK said:

not so fast. It looks like that WH  is looking into a Cold War–imposed statute to prop up U.S. coal plants. The administration is considering implementing the 68-year-old Defense Production Act to bolster long-struggling coal and nuclear power plants

Russians then, Russians now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

just keep in mind that this is Truman era law. One could think that country would move forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

nothing surprising about this. He did promise to save coal and nuclear industry. It's also a sign that the government just doesn't have many reasonable policy levers at its disposal to stem the economic tide going against struggling coal and nuclear plants, hence the need to reference a 1950 law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report post

1 hour ago, Nigerian Price said:

nothing surprising about this. He did promise to save coal and nuclear industry. It's also a sign that the government just doesn't have many reasonable policy levers at its disposal to stem the economic tide going against struggling coal and nuclear plants, hence the need to reference a 1950 law.

um.... imost laws/acts/bills on the books are pre-1950 including our constitution. Some have been amended over time, including this one. The date of the act itself is not a reflection of its necessity. Argue for coal's life or against it, but not that the President is threatening to use an Act that grants him a privilege that every administration has--and not by negligence--maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0