Editorial boards are speaking out against the administration’s order to the U.S. Department of Energy to prop up aging and uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants. The proposal is already being called out by editorial boards for what it is — a money grab by a few special interests groups in Washington at the expense of consumers everywhere. Some highlights:

Bloomberg Editorial Board: “This is not a real problem.”

“The chief beneficiaries of Trump’s plan would be coal-plant operators and their suppliers, a group that includes some of the president’s top supporters. The losses for everybody else — in higher emissions of carbon, additional premature deaths, and higher outlays on electricity — would be far greater. Dirty energy at higher cost: That’s some deal.”

Washington Examiner Editorial Board: “It is a ridiculously bad idea.”

“Given the insignificance of the alleged security problem, together with the irrelevance of fuel sources to most threats to the electrical grid, there’s no reason to view Trump’s bailout as anything but a money-grab by a troubled industry.”

Further commentary from the boards below.

Bloomberg Editorial Board: Plant Closure “Is Not A Real Problem,” And FERC Should Refuse To Cooperate. “In his order Friday, Trump said plant closures threaten the nation’s energy mix and the ‘resilience’ of the grid. This, in turn, threatens national security, in part because U.S. Defense Department installations are almost entirely dependent on the commercial power grid, according to an earlier administration memo obtained by Bloomberg News. Theoretically, the grid needs coal to ensure continuous energy in the event natural gas, hydro power, solar and wind can’t do the job. This not a real problem, however, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission more or less ruled several months ago when it turned down Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s last attempt to prop up coal by rewarding it for its ‘resilience.’ Deregulated power markets in the U.S. already assure a dependable fuel supply by matching prices to demand. FERC might be asked to cooperate again in raising rates to implement this new plan; if so, it should refuse again.” (Editorial Board, “Americans Will Pay A High Price To Save Coal,” Bloomberg, 6/3/18)

Bloomberg Editorial Board: This Plan Benefits Coal-Plant Operators And Their Suppliers, Results In “Losses For Everybody Else.” “The chief beneficiaries of Trump’s plan would be coal-plant operators and their suppliers, a group that includes some of the president’s top supporters. The losses for everybody else — in higher emissions of carbon, additional premature deaths, and higher outlays on electricity — would be far greater. Dirty energy at higher cost: That’s some deal.” (Editorial Board, “Americans Will Pay A High Price To Save Coal,” Bloomberg, 6/3/18)

Washington Examiner Editorial Board: “This Unprecedented Government Interference In Energy Markets Will Harm The Economy.” “First, this unprecedented government interference in energy markets will harm the economy under Trump’s watch. If energy prices rise, everyone will feel it. Voters will be deciding this fall whether to deprive Trump of the ability to enact his agenda and make appointments. To the extent that he pursues economy-crippling central planning policies, he risks losing that election.” (Editorial Board, “Trump’s Energy Bailout Is A Big Mistake,” Washington Examiner, 6/4/18)

Washington Examiner Editorial Board: Arguments In Favor Of A Bailout Are Based On A “False Premise,” As Stockpiling Is “Almost Never Relevant.” “All the arguments in favor of special handouts to coal and nuclear are based on the false premise that the market doesn’t already reward coal and nuclear power for their stability and reliability in carrying large electricity loads. But the market does reward them, and they are still losing market share in spite of it. Advocates will claim that coal and nuclear power are unique in their ability to stockpile fuel, but the numbers show that this characteristic is almost never relevant. More than 90 percent of outages result from distribution failures, not problems at power plants. And a 2017 study found that from 2012 to 2016, less than one customer-hour of outage in a million, or 0.00007 percent, was the result of anything having to do with a power plant’s fuel supply.” (Editorial Board, “Trump’s Energy Bailout Is A Big Mistake,” Washington Examiner, 6/4/18)

“There’s No Reason To View Trump’s Bailout As Anything But A Money-Grab By A Troubled Industry,” Writes Washington Examiner Editorial Board. “Given the insignificance of the alleged security problem, together with the irrelevance of fuel sources to most threats to the electrical grid, there’s no reason to view Trump’s bailout as anything but a money-grab by a troubled industry. America’s coal industry still has a future. Coal companies have long been adjusting to the new reality and selling their fuel abroad, to countries just beginning to use electricity and where coal electric generation makes much more sense. Trump’s attempt to manipulate electricity markets in the U.S. will only disrupt this evolution and force Americans to pay higher energy prices in the process.” (Editorial Board, “Trump’s Energy Bailout Is A Big Mistake,” Washington Examiner, 6/4/18)

R Street: “If Grid Resilience Is Actually A Matter Of National Security, The Trump Administration Is Asleep At The Wheel.” “The paper highlighted that over 90% of service outages occur from distribution-level problems and, since distribution falls under state jurisdiction, grid resilience therefore falls primarily on state governments. The study also examined the relative values of measures to improve grid resilience, finding that coal and nuclear subsidies have very low value, while over two dozen measures have far higher value (see chart below). Read another way, if grid resilience is actually a matter of national security, the Trump administration is asleep at the wheel.” (Devin Hartman, “Where’s The Grid Resilience Fire? (Hint: It’s Not Retiring Power Plants),” R Street, 6/2/18)