Trump’s appointees — not deep state — defeat his energy plan
Sen. Dick Durbin, President Donald Trump, and Rep. Steny Hoyer a meet on immigration policy in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Jan. 9, 2017. Credit: AP
The problem with “deregulation” as a mantra is that by itself it explains nothing. In real life, government officials often choose how, not whether, to set the rules.
This week brought a glaring regulatory fiasco for President Donald Trump rooted in his blustery campaign promises to revive coal mining.
Rick Perry — who became energy secretary after previously urging that the post be abolished — sought to subsidize coal and nuclear plants, whose value was overtaken by other energy sources.
But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Monday rejected that bid in a 5-0 vote. Perry and his department failed to show that current electricity markets are not just or reasonable, the commissioners said.
The resulting higher costs to consumers that would come from Trump’s propping up of old plants wouldn’t be justified, FERC ruled.
As of Tuesday, Trump had not attacked the commissioners — as he did, say, with “so-called judges” who stalled his immigration rules.
Perhaps that was because four of the five votes against the Perry plan were cast by Trump appointees.
This fact wasn’t enough to stop Corey Lewandowski, the former Trump campaign manager, from tweeting over a news account of the FERC decision: “The deep state is very real. More government officials who don’t support the Trump agenda.”
What makes Lewandowski's claim more inane is that these “deep-staters” landed on the side of competitive capitalists.
That is, the ruling was backed by an unlikely mix of conservative activists, environmental groups, power professionals and such businesses as oil, gas and wind energy producers.
Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who generally identifies with the environmental and free-market camps, issued a statement praising the FERC ruling, which is appeal-proof.
“FERC’s rejection of Secretary Perry’s proposal is a victory for consumers, the free market and clean air,” Bloomberg said.
“Trying to prop up the coal industry by forcing American consumers to pay more for energy, and forcing them to accept more pollution . . . was a truly terrible idea.”
Perry argued that the nuclear and coal supports would ensure resiliency for the electric grid, offering options as a backup. FERC did agree to ask grid operators what they are doing in that regard.
Trump uses an old industry marketing phrase, “clean coal,” when promising job protection and growth to miners. Preening before an audience in Phoenix back in August, he made statements that confused some of his listeners.
“It’s just been announced that a second, brand-new coal mine, where they’re going to take out clean coal — meaning, they’re taking out coal, they’re going to clean it — is opening in the state of Pennsylvania, the second one.”
But it’s not as if mine workers grab a soapy brush and scrub the stuff.
Trump sounded as if he was referencing a process by which the noxious carbon-dioxide emissions ban be reduced by storing them or injecting them into a saline reservoir.
That, too, would be subject to some regulation. As usual, the details are the question.
Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
