In this list
Electric Power

Trump's nuclear bailout would cost up to $17 billion a year: NIRS

Energy | Electric Power

Platts Forward Curves – Gas and Power

Electric Power | LNG | Metals | Steel | Natural Gas | Natural Gas (North America)

Market Movers Americas, Dec 11-15: US steel markets show bullishness on mill hikes, offshore LNG project takes next step

Oil | Energy Transition | Energy

APPEC 2024

LNG | Electric Power | Natural Gas | Energy Transition | Nuclear | Electric Power Electricity | Renewables

US POWER TRACKER: ISO-NE forward power prices peak in January, sufficient capacity expected

Electric Power | Electricity | Energy | Energy Transition | Renewables

Platts EuGO: European Guarantees of Origin assessments

Crude Oil | Electric Power | Electric Power Electricity | Energy Transition | Carbon | Emissions | Renewables | LNG | Natural Gas | Natural Gas Shale Gas | Refined Products | Fuel Oil | Shipping | Bunker Fuel | Marine Fuel | Oil & Gas

Insight Conversation: Ezran Mahadzir, Petronas LNG

For full access to real-time updates, breaking news, analysis, pricing and data visualization subscribe today.

Subscribe Now

Trump's nuclear bailout would cost up to $17 billion a year: NIRS

  • Author
  • Elaine Hiruo
  • Editor
  • Bob Matyi
  • Commodity
  • Electric Power

Washington — The Trump administration's proposal that would require grid operators to buy power from nuclear plants could cost US consumers up to $17 billion a year in "artificially high electricity bills" and adding subsidies for coal-fired plants could potentially double that, according to the anti-nuclear Nuclear Information & Resource Service.

Not registered?

Receive daily email alerts, subscriber notes & personalize your experience.

Register Now

"Forcing the purchase of overpriced and non-competitive nuclear and coal power also would crowd out renewables, leaving the US farther behind in wind, solar and energy storage technology development and use," NIRS said Wednesday in a statement.

NIRS issued the statement following a news conference earlier in the day, during which Tim Judson, NIRS executive director; Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioners and former chairman of the Maine and New York utility commissions; and Tyson Slocum, director of Energy Programs at the anti-nuclear group Public Citizen, criticized the administration's proposal aimed at saving coal-fired and nuclear power plants from early shutdowns.

"Betting on old, increasingly uneconomical nuclear and coal power plants as a national security strategy is like gold-plating a Studebaker and calling it a tank," Judson said in the NIRS statement. "And it would destroy the booming renewable energy industry, which is already employing more Americans than coal and nuclear combined."

"We have no military crisis and no threats of our system reliability or resilience that require this drastic and expensive governmental intervention," Bradford said in the statement. "The administration's warnings of dire effects from power shortages caused by shortages of reliable and resilient generation are contradicted by all of the bodies with actual responsibility for assuring adequate supplies," he said.

Slocum added that the proposal would cost billions of dollars and "bolster the profits of a handful of Trump's top campaign and financial supporters." Trump, he said, "is charging consumers billions to fill the swamp with undeserving special interests."

--Elaine Hiruo,
--Edited by Valarie Jackson,