Trump’s bogus national security case to save failing power plants will cost consumers Trump is invoking wartime powers and 'national security' to save coal plants. But there's no energy crisis and he can't stop the future. It's renewables.

David Schlissel | Opinion contributor

For all the serious national security threats currently facing our country, it seems like a waste of time and resources to use a nearly 70-year-old defense law to rescue failing, outdated industries. Yet that is precisely what the Trump administration is planning to do.

The administration indicated last month that it intends to use the Defense Production Act of 1950, enacted as a drastic national-security measure to be deployed in time of war, to prop up failing coal and nuclear power plants. Invoking this act would be a blatant misuse of the law, which came into effect at the outset of the Korean War and with the intent of ensuring rapid mobilization of U.S. industries within the larger context of the Cold War. And it will be costly for anyone who pays an electric bill.

Today, the president wants to rely on the act to intervene in the energy market and bail out unprofitable power plants that can no longer compete against natural gas and renewables. The administration claims these plants are necessary to prevent blackouts on the grid — a claim nearly all experts say is untrue. The administration is instead motivated largely by politics — Trump promised repeatedly on the campaign trail and while in office to bring about a renaissance in an industry that is in irreversible decline.

Closing coal plants is safe and healthier

Two companies in particular have championed the administration’s move. FirstEnergy and Murray Energy are both struggling with outdated business models that wrongly assume American demand for coal will never end. But, a fast-moving transition away from coal is enveloping the American electricity industry, and utility executives themselves have acknowledged and embraced this reality. The CEO of Xcel, one of the nation’s largest utilities, told the audience at an industry convention this month that it was "just a matter of when” the U.S. would retire its coal fleet.

That said, it’s unclear how many plants would be artificially propped up by invoking the Defense Production Act, but it will certainly come with a price. Credit ratings agency Moody’s said earlier this month that while the proposed bailout would be good for coal and nuclear plant owners, it will be costly for residential and manufacturing ratepayers. At a recent Senate hearing, one member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the bailout could cost up to $65 billion, or about $500 more per year for the average person who pays an electric bill.

In fact, all five members of the commission, including those appointed by Trump, indicated in recent open testimony to Congress that the retirement of coal and nuclear power presents no threat to the grid and that, in fact, markets are working quite well.

More: How Trump can beat China without a trade war: Make America a renewable energy superpower

Trump's renewable energy cuts put us on the ropes in the fight against climate change

Russians are hacking our electric grid. Where's the urgency on this escalating threat?

Robert Powelson, one of the three Republicans on the commission, said the plan could very well collapse competitive markets and "result in significant rate increases without any corresponding reliability, resilience or cybersecurity benefits.”

And this doesn’t even get into the health consequences of burning coal, which is linked to tens of thousands of deaths each year.

The Trump plan is so nonsensical, in fact, that it’s uniting broad swaths of the energy industry in opposition. The American Petroleum Institute joined a larger group of industry associations that represent energy-efficiency and storage businesses, natural gas, solar and wind generators to condemn the effort.

Coal plants raise costs for consumers

The Trump administration’s supposed panic over grid security comes as power prices from sustainable solar and wind keep dropping. In Nevada, a power provider just signed a long-term power purchase agreement that will provide electricity from solar resources for a record low $23 per megawatt hour. That’s far less than the cost of producing electricity at the coal-fired Navajo Generation Station in neighboring Arizona, which, like many such plants across the country, is scheduled for closure because it can’t compete. It’s not just out West that this transition is happening. Driven by record low prices, solar and wind-powered generators are replacing coal-fired generation across large parts of the nation.

Not a lot is clear about the technical reasoning or practical execution behind Trump’s move. What is clear is that these lower-cost renewables — solar and wind — and gas-fired generators would be bumped off the grid in favor of more expensive coal plants. All in the name of a national security “emergency” that does not exist.

The president’s use of emergency war-time powers to save coal-fired and nuclear power plants is ultimately a futile attempt to thwart long-term, fundamental change in U.S. energy markets that will proceed nonetheless, and to the benefit of customers everywhere. The administration should spend its time on real problems, not manufactured ones.

David Schlissel is director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.