President Trump's Energy Commission Appointees Block His Plan to Use Coal for Votes
Former Trump campaign manager and recent lobbyist Corey Lewandowski on Tuesday railed against the so-called "deep state," a fake GOP construct that supposedly exists in the form of Obama appointees who work in the federal government but secretly are trying to take down Donald Trump.
"The deep state is very real. More government officials who don't support the Trump agenda," Lewandowski tweeted atop a New York Times article titled, "Regulators Reject Plan to Rescue Struggling Coal and Nuclear Plants."
The deep state is very real. More government officials who don't support the Trump agenda. https://t.co/dWWvyPBFypâ€” Corey R. Lewandowski (@CLewandowski_) January 9, 2018
Those regulators sit on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a five-member panel.
There's just one problem, as Vox's Matt Yglesias noted: these supposed "deep state" members were appointed by President Donald Trump.
These are Trump appointees https://t.co/Hbc7sUvhJGâ€” Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) January 9, 2018
Calling it "a major blow to the Trump administration's efforts to revive America's declining coal industry," The New York Times article notes that Energy Secretary Rick Perry wanted to subsidize failing coal and nuclear plants while ignoring natural gas manufacturers. Natural gas is less polluting than coal and doesn't present the challenges of nuclear waste.
Climate and free market advocates opposed the plan.
Trump supports it because he used coal workers to get votes.
There are five members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Four of the five (and even the chairman,) were appointed by President Trump.
As for the "deep state" decision, instead of partisan paranoia, how about some logic and science?
The Times noted:
"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that temporarily delaying the retirement of uncompetitive coal and nuclear generators would meaningfully improve the resilience of the grid," wrote Commissioner Richard Glick, concurring with the agency's decision to reject the proposal. "Rather, the record demonstrates that, if a threat to grid resilience exists, the threat lies mostly with the transmission and distribution systems, where virtually all significant disruptions occur."
To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.
If you find NCRM valuable, would you please consider making a donation to support our independent journalism?
See a mistake? Email corrections to: [email protected]