The Intelligencer edits and buries an important energy decision

You’ll need to turn to page 8 of this morning’s Intelligencer to read about an important energy decision that was made yesterday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Intelligencer’s version of the AP report tells us:

An independent energy agency on Monday rejected a Trump administration plan to bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants, dealing a blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to boost the struggling coal industry.

The decision by the Republican-controlled Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was unexpected and comes amid repeated promises by Trump to revive coal as the nation’s top power source. The industry has been besieged by multiple bankruptcies and a steady loss of market share as natural gas and renewable energy flourish.

The energy commission said in its decision that despite claims by the administration to the contrary, there is no evidence that any past or planned retirements of coal-fired power plants pose a threat to reliability of the nation’s electric grid.

That a Republican-controlled FERC found no evidence that coal-fired plant retirements would affect the reliability of the power grid is big news. (It also refutes an argument that Representative McKinley and our local “newspapers” have repeatedly made about insuring the grid's reliability.)

The Intelligencer, to its credit, did bring us the basic news although it was buried on page 8. But, as it often does with AP energy articles, the original was edited to Ogden biases which in this case means removing most of the material that's critical of Ogden's pro-fossil fuel editorial stance. In this case, the last 40% of the article that was deleted included criticisms of the Perry plan:

The exact cost of Perry's plan is unknown, but critics said it could have resulted in subsidies to coal and nuclear plants worth billions of dollars.

Environmental groups said the administration's plan would boost dirty and dangerous fuels, while energy providers outside of coal and nuclear warned about interference in the free market.

Manufacturers that use huge amounts of electricity complained about higher energy prices that could be passed on to consumers.

The Intelligencer fails to cover the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a Murray Energy lawsuit (but it does cover the Court’s decision on Native American gaming)

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear an important coal case brought by Murray Energy. E&E News explains:

Coal giant Murray Energy Corp.'s bid to force U.S. EPA to continually evaluate the impacts of its air regulations on the coal industry today came to an end in the Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was one of four environmental law cases that justices declined to take up as they returned from their holiday break. . . .

In the coal industry jobs case, justices rejected Murray's petition that sought to revive a West Virginia federal judge's order requiring EPA to evaluate job losses and other economic impacts on the coal industry.

The company, under the leadership of Trump supporter Robert Murray, initially filed the suit in 2014, characterizing it as fighting back against the Obama administration's "war on coal." It alleged that EPA had failed to abide by a section of the Clean Air Act that says EPA "shall conduct continuing evaluations" of job losses or employment shifts brought on by air regulations.

As The Hill concluded:

The rejection means that the previous ruling stands, in which the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the EPA does not have to regularly produce the jobs reports.

I would think that local readers will eventually read about this decision once our local “newspapers” learn from Murray Energy how it should be covered.