Quote round-up: What people are saying about DOE's resiliency proposal

There has been no shortage of opinions on the debate over markets, resiliency and how to ensure proper compensation for different energy sources. Here’s a look at what people are saying:

• “(The rule) would bring an end to competitive power markets, is not clearly needed to ensure grid reliability and resiliency, and would be very expensive.” Morgan Stanley
• “DOE rulemaking threatens to destroy wholesale markets with no tangible benefit.” Energy Innovation
• “The proposal is an arbitrary backdoor subsidy to coal and nuclear plants that risks undermining electrical competition throughout the United States.” R Street Institute
• “The proposal from the Department of Energy is an excessive and unnecessarily distortive means of pursuing a more appropriate valuation for secure baseload generation capacity. Like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly, this rule would end up causing enormous destruction even if it also managed to provide more resilient baseload capacity. Guaranteeing cost recovery for certain types of generation would destroy electricity markets.” Institute for Energy Research
• “This proposed rule has something for everyone to dislike.” Advanced Energy Economy
• “Supplanting newer, efficient units with older, less reliable ones in the markets will threaten reliability and market efficiency.” ISO-RTO Council
• “The North American Bulk Power System is reliable and resilient.” NERC
• “Many of the findings in the proposal are unsubstantiated, the proposed solution is contrary to competitive markets, and the timeline for action is unreasonable.” Calpine