Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Kevin McIntyre told reporters Tuesday that 

he  believed  Energy Secretary Rick Perry would make "the right decision" as the Department 

of Energy contemplates steps to preserve coal and nuclear power generation. 

The White House June 1 directed Perry to take immediate action to prevent further losses of 

fuel-secure  coal  and  nuclear  power  plants that have struggled to remain economic in an 

energy  landscape dominated by cheap natural gas and increased integration of renewable 

energy resources. 

DOE  officials  have confirmed that using emergency authorities under Section 202(c) of the 

Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act is under consideration as one option for 

addressing baseload retirements and fuel security issues. But the department has not offered 

any time line for when it would finalize its approach. 

Speaking  at  a  Natural  Gas  Roundtable luncheon Tuesday, McIntyre said any policy action 

being weighed by a governmental body should never go forward until the legal implications of 

such action have been carefully considered. "Once that has been undertaken, that amounts 

to a set of lay markers within which policy decisions can be made," he said. 

Talking to reporters after the event, he said the standards for invoking emergency authority 

to address  power  issues  " are  spelled  out pretty clearly not only in the relevant statutory 

provisions but also in DOE's existing regulations." 

RIGHT OR WRONG, DECISION IS UP TO PERRY 

Characterizing Perry as a smart, talented quick study of energy policy, McIntyre expressed 

confidence in the energy secretary's ability to review and rule on the grid resilience questio

ns before him. Ultimately, "the law assigns that role to him, so if anyone's going to make the 

decision -- right or wrong -- it's going to be him. And I trust that he will make the right 

decision," McIntyre said. 

A  draft  DOE memo leaked May 31 that attempts to justify a national security argument for 

saving coal and nuclear power plants from retirement stoked concerns among a large swath 

of  the  energy  industry.  Natural  gas  trade  groups, in particular, pushed back against the 

memo's claims  regarding natural gas system vulnerabilities. 

Cheaper gas-fired generation presents a key source of competition to vulnerable coal and 

nuclear plants, and the gas sector has feared that efforts to give a lift to the at-risk generat

ing resources could result in gas-fired units getting squeezed out. 

DOE's  draft  memo  referred  to  a  plan  that would require grid operators to buy energy or 

capacity from designated facilities for two years to prevent retirements. 

It also asserted that gas pipelines were more vulnerable to cyber and physical attacks, and 

that  disruptions  to  gas-fired  power  plants were events with a higher impact and a higher 

likelihood. 

McIntyre  said  he  had  not  been  briefed  on  the memo, but made clear that DOE had no 

obligation to do so. He also seemed to question the significance of the leaked document. 

'THAT SHOE HAS NOT DROPPED' 

"I think it's important for us to remind ourselves that nothing has happened," he told reporte

rs. While the leaked draft offers potential justifications to support exercising DOE's emergen

cy authority, "that shoe has not dropped; we don't know whether it will." 

McIntyre added that the grid "generally held up pretty well despite very challenging weather 

conditions," including last winter's bomb cyclone that rattled the US East Coast. 

This and other weather events of late have provided data and analyses on grid performance 

that indicate, despite some operational challenges, the system performed well, he said. "Of 

course the system intentionally is designed to anticipate such events and be prepared for 

them. That's all a part of resilience," McIntyre said. 

Regarding  FERC's  separate  review  of grid resilience launched in January, McIntyre told 

luncheon  attendees  that  the  commission  was looking to answer a number of questions, 

"including  real fundamental  ones  like what  should  [resilience]  mean  for  purposes  of 

considering action to shore up resilience."