Heinrich Presses Secretary Wright on Out-of-Control Gas Prices and disagreement with President Trump, Questions DOE’s Actions that Prop Up Aging Coal Plants

On Out-of-Control Gas Prices Since Onset of Iran War  

Heinrich began, “Secretary Wright, on television earlier this week, you said that gas prices may not fall below $3 a gallon until 2027. Do you stand by that today?” 

Secretary Wright answered, “I don't know the future of energy prices. Often I will speculate or look at those things. I would say gasoline prices looks like they peaked about a week or so ago, one dollar a gallon cheaper than they peaked during the Biden administration. Yet we're in the midst of ending a 47-year conflict in the Middle East, a major energy producing region.  

Heinrich pushed back, “It is over four dollars a gallon. Is that reasonable? Do you think that's a good price for people to pay at the pump?”  

Wright responded, “Well, in contrast to the last administration, our goal is as low as possible energy prices. And yes, we were proud to have gasoline prices below two dollars a gallon earlier this year, and we look forward to getting them back there.” 

Heinrich followed, “What are they right now?” 

Wright responded, “Just over four dollars.” 

Heinrich asked, “And what is Diesel?” 

Wright responded, “Diesel is over five dollars.”  

Heinrich responded, “It's closer to six in my state.” 

Wright followed, “It's over eight in California.” 

On DOE Using Emergency Authority to Keep Dying Coal Plants Open 

Heinrich asked, “You've used emergency authority to keep thermal coal plants online. And in cases like Washington, Indiana, Colorado, those thermal coal plants are sitting idle. However, those utilities have already purchased replacement generation, so when they're ordered to stay online, effectively, customers are charged for the cost of maintaining those thermal coal facilities, plus they're charged for the price of replacement generation, because those utilities had to come up with replacement generation before they decided to retire those facilities. Is it appropriate to pass those costs on to consumers? Shouldn't the Department of Energy be responsible for those costs? $42 million in the case of the Michigan plant.” 

Wright responded, “It’s hard to overstate the cost to health and businesses and consumers of blackouts. You mentioned the Michigan plant, the first one we issue...” 

Heinrich interjected, “The state of Michigan and the utility in that case, completely disagree with your conclusion that they were at risk.” 

Wright responded, “Days later, days later, after we kept the Campbell coal power plant running, it was running at maximum capacity, and they were at the edge of a blackout. Northern [Midcontinent Independent System Operator] MISO is one of the most at risk regions there is. That plant has run over that entire summer above average for all assets on the grid.” 

Heinrich followed, “What about the Colorado plant? How often has the Colorado plant run?” 

Wright answered, “The Colorado plant is in western Colorado, and it's in a region that suffers with transmission bottlenecks. If that plant is not there, if a peak demand event comes to that region, they're at high risk of blackout. We want the lights to stay on...”  

Heinrich followed, “I want the lights [on] — reliability is not negotiable. However, I've had co-ops come and complain about those costs being passed on to them when the replacement generation has already been purchased. So my concern is, if you're going to declare an emergency, should you be able to pass those costs on to the customer?” 

Wright answered, “The benefits go onto the customers as well. Let me explain. Senator Heinrich, one other point. We've used 202(c)s for a certain number of gigawatts of coal, a much larger increment of coal slated coal closures were not closed because the utilities and everyone got the message, ‘oh, you're going to have our back’ because state and other politicians were forcing us to close assets. We don't want to close, you're going to cover us. We're not going to close them then.” 

On DOE Repurposing Congressionally Allocated Funds Meant for Carbon Capture Projects to Subsidize Coal Plants 

Heinrich answered, “Well, I don't think it was politicians that decided to close the plant in Colorado. I think it was the utility. The Department of Energy appears to have also repurposed funds that Congress appropriated specifically for carbon capture to subsidize coal [fueled] power plants. What statutory authority allows you to move those dollars? I couldn't find anything in the statute that allowed those to be reallocated. What's the authority you're using to reallocate those funds?” 

Wright answered, “So we have continued to look at proposals for carbon capture on coal plants. When we find one or ones that make economic sense, we will deploy those funds, but we can't deploy carbon capture fund on coal plants that are closed and gone. So yes, these were funds targeted for enhancing coal plants. We're enhancing them to keep them open.” 

Heinrich pushed back, “But if you want to spend those funds on keeping those plants open, you need funds that are authorized to keep those plants open, which does not exist. So you're changing the authority without any statutory basis.” 

Wright answered, “They're funds, they’re dedicated to enhancing the operations of coal plants, and we're deploying them to enhance the operation of coal plants.”  

Heinrich countered, “I think you're on very thin legal ice.”