 
|
Signature Sponsor
February 8, 2026 - The Trump administration said its use of emergency orders to keep aging coal-fired plants operating helped prevent major blackouts during the recent brutal winter storm. Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed the orders were necessary to maintain reliable electricity service, with natural gas and coal leading the way. However, critics argued the orders understated the role of renewable energy sources and could cost consumers billions. Why it matters The debate over the administration's use of emergency powers to prop up coal plants highlights the ongoing tensions between fossil fuel and renewable energy sources, as well as concerns about the reliability and affordability of the electric grid during extreme weather events. The details Wright said the emergency orders prevented blackouts by allowing coal and natural gas plants to provide the majority of electricity generation during the storm. However, opponents argued the orders were unnecessary, would raise consumer costs, and unfairly punished some utilities. Clean energy advocates said renewable sources like wind and solar played a key role in keeping the lights on, especially in regions that have invested heavily in them.
The players Chris Wright The U.S. Energy Secretary who defended the administration's use of emergency orders to keep coal plants operating during the winter storm. James Danly The Deputy Energy Secretary who contrasted the grid performance during the recent storm with a similar storm in 2021, calling the administration's approach a 'new way of doing business' during power emergencies. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and Platte River Power Authority The nonprofit owners of the Craig Generating Station in Colorado who filed a protest with the Energy Department seeking to reverse the order to keep their Unit 1 operating. John Hensley A senior vice president at the American Clean Power Association, an industry group, who said renewable sources like wind and solar saved consumers billions during the storm and helped ensure the lights stayed on. Michael Goggin An executive vice president at Grid Strategies, a consulting firm, who said preventing the nation's coal plants from retiring over the next three years could cost consumers at least $3 billion per year. What they’re saying “The big picture story is where we actually got energy from during this storm. In fact, we had times where our existing capacity couldn't deliver anything and the lights would have gone out if not for emergency orders.” — Chris Wright, Energy Secretary (wbal.com) “The bottom line here is that we managed to ensure that there was sufficient capacity. Not one area had a blackout or a forced outage due to loss of capacity.” — James Danly, Deputy Energy Secretary (wbal.com) “It's expensive to keep them going.” — Michael Goggin, Executive Vice President, Grid Strategies (wbal.com) “Blaming renewables for not performing during the storm 'is like trying to blame someone on the bench for losing the game. They didn't get a chance' to play.” — John Hensley, Senior Vice President, American Clean Power Association (wbal.com) What’s next The judge in the case involving the Craig Generating Station will decide on Tuesday whether to allow the Energy Department's order to keep the plant operating to remain in effect. |
|