3 ms·
> Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy. Why didn't they have this excess capacity before the 20% redu
by cloverich 5y ago
> Regulations reducing coal capacity by 20% without on-demand replacement capacity is bad policy.
Why didn't they have this excess capacity before the 20% reduction rule went into effect? When will they have it now that is has gone in to effect? I get the gist, although if the goal is to encourage green alternatives and planning, a policy that requires a reduction is simpler than one that requires reduction and a plan. I would rather have the latter, but if the alternative to the former is no green policy, then that's not a real option. So what could that policy have been to improve the situation?
- beerandt 5y agoThere's a huge amount of uncertainty, mainly. The EPA is trying to act on its own, and despite losing lawsuits, cost of regulatory compliance and lawsuits goes up. Investors don't want to risk entering the "new market" in case the "old market" isn't actually shut down or run out of town and remains competitive. Uncertain indirect subsidies via govt driving up your competitors costs is less enticing than guaranteed subsidies for building more wind and solar. The best solution is not allowing arbitraty administrative agencies to take the place of legislative certainty. But that's been deemed unacceptable by those demanding change at all costs despite lacking popular or legislative support.