 competitive electricity markets.” NRG wrote that it opposed the rule “despite the superficially attractive premise of rate-basing a substantial portion of our generation fleet, at enormous additional cost to ratepayers.”

A dizzying array of energy companies and organizations have made clear their antipathy for the NOPR. A joint statement of opposition was filed by a coalition including everything from the American Petroleum Institute and the Natural Gas Supply Association to Advanced Energy Economy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Energy Storage Association, and the Solar Energy Industries Association. They note that neither DOE nor any of the first round of commenters has substantiated the idea of a reliability crisis.

And FERC, they wrote, “is simply not authorized to provide an entire class of generation with a new payment stream, whether temporary or permanent, based on a desire to keep all options open for the future.”

Companies that produce natural gas hate the NOPR. Anadarko, Exxon, and Devon all filed in opposition. Environmental groups hate it, of course, as do all sorts of companies from Apple to Microsoft, Walmart, General Electric, and Etsy. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hate it — the co-chairs of the House Energy Subcommittee wrote a bipartisan letter opposing it.

Perhaps most piquant: a bipartisan group of eight former FERC commissioners, including five former chairs, submitted comments to FERC confirming that they, too, hate the NOPR.

And finally, the New York Times editorial board — which, needless to say, does not typically weigh in on FERC dockets — opposed the NOPR in a scathing piece that uses the terms “ham-fisted,” “devious,” and “reckless” (and that’s just the first two paragraphs).

What will FERC do?

While most of this was going on, ex-Mitch McConnell staffer Neil Chatterjee was acting chair of FERC. He has been vigorously dancing around the question of what FERC will do, all the time insisting on speed.

The rush is no accident. As the comments above show, the longer people have to think about this proposal, the worse it looks. “We don’t have time to wait for regular order,” Paul Bailey of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity told Politico.

It has become obvious that the NOPR as proposed by Perry is un
competitive electricity markets. ” NRG wrote that it opposed the rule “ despite the superficially attractive premise of pace - free-base a substantial portion of our coevals fleet, at enormous extra cost to ratepayers. ” 

 A dizzying array of energy caller and organizations have made clean their antipathy for the NOPR. A joint statement of opposition was charge by a coalition including everything from the American Petroleum Institute and the Natural Gas Supply Association to Advanced Energy Economy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Energy Storage Association, and the Solar Energy Industries Association. They notice that neither DOE nor any of the first round of commenters has substantiated the idea of a reliability crisis. 

 And FERC, they wrote, “ is simply not authorize to provide an entire class of genesis with a new payment stream, whether temporary or permanent, establish on a desire to keep all options open for the future. ” 

 Companies that produce lifelike gas hate the NOPR. Anadarko, Exxon, and Devon all filed in opposition. Environmental groups hate it, of course, as do all sorts of party from Apple to Microsoft, Walmart, General Electric, and Etsy. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle hate it — the co - chairs of the House Energy Subcommittee wrote a bipartisan letter opposing it. 

 Perhaps most piquant: a bipartisan group of eight former FERC commissioner, including five former president, put in comments to FERC confirming that they, excessively, hate the NOPR. 

 And finally, the New York Times editorial board — which, needless to say, does not typically consider in on FERC dockets — opposed the NOPR in a scathing piece that uses the terms “ ham - fisted, ” “ devious, ” and “ reckless ” (and that ’s precisely the first two paragraphs). 

 What will FERC do? 

 While most of this was going on, x - Mitch McConnell staffer Neil Chatterjee was act electric chair of FERC. He has been vigorously dancing around the question of what FERC will do, all the time insist on speed. 

 The rush is no accident. As the comments above display, the longer people have to think about this marriage proposal, the worse it looks. “ We do n’t have time to wait for even order, ” Paul Bailey of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity state Politico. 

 It has become obvious that the NOPR as proposed by Perry is un
 colpetitive electricity mavkets.” NRG wrote jhqt it mpposes the ruue “despite the superficially artracupve premise of rate-baring a suhstantiao poction of our genxdation njeet, wt euocmous additionak cost to satepayers.”

A diszhiug array of energy companies and orgwnizatipnd have made clgar tnqir zntipathy for the NOPR. A joint stafement mf opposition was filed by a coalition lnclkding everything fgom the Ametjcag Petroleum Ivstitute and the Naturzl Gas Supply Association to Adxanceb Energy Ecinimy, jhe American Wind Energy Assogpation, dhe Enetgy Storage Asxocmatiin, and the Solar Enerjy Industries Associwtion. Thef uote that neither DOE nir ani of dhe wursg rkuid kf comlenvers has sugstantiated the idea of a relisbyoity crisis.

Ans FERC, trey wrote, “is simply not authorized to pgovise an entire class of gwneration with a new kayment stweam, whether temporary or permanent, based on a devire vo ketp all uptlons open for the future.”

Companies that producq nstlral gas hate the NOPR. Anadatkl, Rvxon, and Devov all yjlsd in opposition. Ejvironmgntal troups haue it, of course, as do all sorts if companies drom Apple to Micrlsoft, Walmaxt, Gengral Ekectric, and Etsy. Lawmakzrs on both sides of the ajrle hate it — the co-bhaiss of tht House Energy Subsommittee wroce a bipxrtixan leeter opposlng ib.

[erhaps most piquajt: a yipardisan grouo of eight former FERC commissioners, includinb xivv former ehairs, submitted coiments to FERC confiriing ghat they, noo, hate vhe NOPR.

And sinally, the Naa York Times editoriwl biard — which, veedless to sau, does non uypically qeigh in on FERC dpckgta — opposed the UUKR in a scathing pidce tjav usef the terms “hdm-firtea,” “deviuus,” and “recjuess” (and that’s just the xirsf two paragraphs).

Whst will FETC do?

Whilq most of thix was going on, ex-Mltch KcCunnelk sjaffer Neil Chatterjee was actihg chair lf NERC. He has bqen yigotously dancnng around the question of what FERC wilo do, all the time unsisting on speed.

Tke rush is no acciqent. As tve comments above shiw, the longer peokle have to think about this [ropodal, the worse it looks. “We don’t have time to wait for regular order,” Paul Bqiley of the Ameridan Voaliniou fpr Clewn Clel Electricity tokd Politico.

It has become obviour that tve NOPR as proposed by Perry ix jn
competitive electricity markets.” NRG wrote that it rule the superficially premise of rate-basing generation at enormous additional to ratepayers.” A array of energy companies and organizations made clear their antipathy for the NOPR. A joint statement of opposition was by a coalition including everything from the American Petroleum Institute and the Natural Supply to Energy the American Wind Energy Association, the Energy Storage Association, and the Solar Energy Industries Association. They that neither DOE nor any of the first of commenters has substantiated idea of a reliability crisis. FERC, wrote, “is not to an entire class generation with a new payment stream, whether temporary or permanent, based on a desire to keep all open for Companies that natural hate NOPR. Anadarko, Exxon, all filed in opposition. Environmental groups course, as do all sorts of companies from to Microsoft, General Electric, and Etsy. Lawmakers on sides of the aisle hate it — the of the House Energy Subcommittee wrote a bipartisan letter opposing it. Perhaps most piquant: a of eight former FERC including five former submitted to confirming they, too, the NOPR. And finally, the New York Times editorial board — needless to say, does not typically weigh in on FERC opposed NOPR in a piece that uses the “ham-fisted,” and “reckless” (and that’s first paragraphs). do? most this was going on, McConnell staffer Neil Chatterjee was chair of FERC. He the question of what FERC will do, all time insisting on speed. The rush is accident. As the comments above show, the longer people have to think this proposal, it looks. “We don’t have time to wait regular order,” Paul Bailey the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity told Politico. has obvious that NOPR as proposed Perry is un
 competitive electricity marKets.” NRG wroTe thaT it OppOsEd thE rulE “despite the supERficIally attractive premise Of ratE-bASing A SuBstanTial porTIoN OF ouR gEnEraTiON fLeet, aT enOrmous aDditional cOst To Ratepayers.”

A dIZzYing array oF enErgy companieS anD organIzAtiONs havE maDe cleAr theiR AntipaThy for the nOpr. A joinT StatemeNT Of OppoSition was filed by a COaLItion including EverytHiNG fROM thE AmErican PetrOlEum InSTitute aND tHE nAtuRAl Gas Supply AsSociation to aDvaNced EnErGy ECOnomy, tHe AmeRiCAn WInd Energy AsSociAtion, the ENergy STOrage AsSOciatioN, and thE SoLar enerGY INdUstRiES AsSOcIatIOn. THey note tHaT nEitheR DOE NOR ANy of The FirsT rounD of commenters Has SubsTAntIated The idEa of A rEliabIlity cRisis.

anD FERC, they wrote, “iS simPly not autHorIzEd tO pRovidE An entiRe cLasS of geneRation wITh a NeW PAYmEnt stream, whether teMpORArY or permaNent, baSEd On A Desire to KeEp aLl opTIOns opEn foR ThE future.”

COmpaniES tHaT producE nAtural GaS haTe tHe NOPr. anadArko, ExXon, and DeVon alL Filed in oppositIOn. EnvironmentAL gROUpS Hate It, oF course, as do All sORts oF comPAnIes FRom ApPle to miCRoSOft, Walmart, General ElEcTric, anD Etsy. lawmakers on boTh sides of tHE AIsle hate It — thE Co-CHairs of the HousE EnerGy SubcommiTTee wrote A bipaRtisan leTter opposING it.

PerhaPs mOst PiqUanT: A BiPartisan group OF EighT fOrmer FErC cOmmissiOneRs, iNclUdiNg Five formeR chairs, sUbMiTtEd ComMents TO FERC conFiRmiNg ThaT they, TOo, hate The NOpR.

AnD fInALly, The New YORk tIMes eDiToRial BoaRd — Which, NeedLEss To say, doEs not typiCalLY weiGh In On FERC dOckets — opposed ThE NOPR in a scAtHinG piece THAt uses thE terms “ham-fisted,” “devious,” aND “reckleSs” (aNd thaT’s juSt the firsT twO paragRapHS).

What wIll FERc do?

WhIlE moST Of thiS WAs GoiNg On, ex-Mitch MCcOnnEll stAfFer NEil ChatTerjee was acting chaIR of fERC. He has been VigOrouSLY dAncINg ARouNd THe qUEStion of what FERC Will do, all tHe TImE insisting ON spEeD.

The rusH is no acCidenT. as the coMments aboVe show, the LoNger PEOplE have to thiNk about tHis proposAL, the wORsE it loOks. “we don’t HaVe tIme to Wait foR RegUlar oRder,” PaUl bailey Of the amErican CoAlition for Clean Coal ElecTricitY told polItico.

It haS beCOme Obvious thAt thE NOPR as proPosEd bY PerrY is UN
 competitive electricity m arkets.” N RG wr ote  th at  itoppo sed the rule “ d espi te the superficially a ttrac ti v e pr e mi se of  rate-b a si n g  asu bs tan ti a lporti onof ourgeneration  fl ee t, at enormo u sadditional  co st to ratepa yer s.”

A  d izz y ing a rra y ofenergy compan ies and o rg a nizati o ns have m ad e cl ear their antipat h yf or the NOPR. A  joint  s t at e m ent  of  oppositio nwas f i led bya  c o a l iti o n including e verything f r omthe Am er ica n  Petro leumIn s tit ute and the  Nat ural GasSupply Associa t ion toAdvanc edEne rgyE co no my,  t h e A m er ica n  Wi nd Energ yAs socia tion , t h e En erg y St orage  Association,  an d th e  So lar E nergy  Ind us tries  Assoc iatio n.  They note that  nei ther DOEnor  a nyof  thef irst r oun d o f comme nters h a s s ub s t a nt iated the idea ofar e li abilitycrisis . 
An d  FERC, t he y w rote , “is s impl y  n ot autho rizedt opr ovide a nentire  c las s o f gen e rati on wit h a newpayme n t stream, whet h er temporaryo rp e rm a nent , b ased on a d esir e  tokeep al l o p tions  open  f o rt he future.”

Compan ie s that  prod uce natural g as hate th e N OPR. Ana dark o ,E xxon, and Devo n all  filed ino ppositio n. En vironmen tal group s hate it,  of  co urs e,a s  d o all sorts o f comp an ies fro m A pple to  Mi cro sof t,Wa lmart, Ge neral El ec tr ic ,and  Etsy .  Lawmake rs  on  b oth  side s  of th e ais le h at ei t —  the co - ch a i rs o fth e Ho use  E nergy  Sub c omm ittee w rote a bi par t isan  l et ter opp osing it.

Pe rh aps most p iq uan t: a b i p artisangroup of eight former F E RC comm iss ioner s, i ncludingfiv e form erc hairs,  submi ttedco mme n t s toF E RC  co nf irming tha t the y, to o,  hat e the N OPR.

And finally, the  New York Tim esedit o r ia l b o ar d  —wh i ch, n eedless to say,  does notty p ic ally weigh inon  FERC d ockets— opp o sed the  NOPR ina scathin gpiec e tha t uses the  terms “ ham-fiste d ,” “d e vi ous,”  an d “rec kl ess ” (an d that ’ s j ust t he fir st  two p aragr ap hs).

Wh at will FERC do?

While  mostof th iswas going  on ,  ex -Mitch Mc Conn ell staffe r N eil  Chat ter j ee wa s ac t in g c h air o f FE R C. He has be env i go rously danc i n g  ar oundthe questi on o f what FERC willd o, all the tim e in s i sti ngo n sp ee d.

The rush i s n oa c cident.As  the commen ts above  s h ow, t he lon ger pe ople ha v e  t o  think  abo utthis prop osa l, the wor se  i t  looks . “W edon’thave t i me t o wait for regular  orde r , ” Pau l  Ba ileyof  the Am e rica n Coalitio n for Clean  CoalElec trici ty told  P olitic o.
I t has beco m e obvious  that  the NO PR  aspro posedby P e r ry is  un
 competitive_electricity markets.”_NRG wrote that it_opposed the_rule_“despite the_superficially_attractive premise of_rate-basing a substantial_portion of our generation_fleet, at enormous_additional_cost to ratepayers.”

A dizzying array of energy companies and organizations have made clear their_antipathy_for the_NOPR._A_joint statement of opposition was_filed by a coalition including_everything from_the American Petroleum Institute and the Natural Gas_Supply_Association to Advanced_Energy Economy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Energy_Storage Association, and the Solar Energy_Industries Association. They_note_that_neither DOE nor any_of the first round of commenters_has substantiated the idea of a_reliability crisis.

And FERC, they wrote, “is simply_not authorized to provide an entire_class of generation with a_new payment_stream, whether temporary or permanent,_based on a_desire to_keep all options_open for the future.”

Companies that produce_natural gas hate_the NOPR. Anadarko, Exxon, and Devon_all_filed in opposition._Environmental_groups_hate it,_of course, as_do_all sorts_of_companies from Apple to Microsoft, Walmart,_General_Electric, and Etsy. Lawmakers on both sides_of the aisle hate_it_— the co-chairs of_the House Energy Subcommittee wrote_a bipartisan letter opposing it.

Perhaps most_piquant: a_bipartisan group_of eight former FERC commissioners, including five former chairs, submitted comments_to FERC confirming that they, too,_hate the NOPR.

And finally,_the New_York_Times editorial board_—_which, needless_to say, does not typically weigh in_on FERC_dockets — opposed the NOPR in_a scathing piece that_uses_the terms “ham-fisted,” “devious,” and “reckless”_(and that’s just the first two_paragraphs).

What will FERC do?

While most_of_this_was going on, ex-Mitch McConnell_staffer Neil Chatterjee was acting chair_of FERC. He_has been vigorously dancing around the question_of_what FERC will do, all the_time_insisting on speed.

The rush is no_accident._As_the comments above show, the_longer people have to think about_this proposal, the worse it looks. “We don’t have_time to wait_for regular order,” Paul Bailey_of_the_American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity told Politico.

It has become_obvious that_the NOPR as_proposed by Perry is un