PBS高端访谈:特朗普政府向煤炭业倾斜（在线收听）

Hari Sreenivasan: The operators of coal and nuclear power plants got a boost from the Trump administration this week. The president ordered energy secretary Rick Perry to prepare immediate steps to stop the often unprofitable plants from shutting down. Proposals include ordering power-grid operators to buy electricity from coal and nuclear plants even though natural gas and alternative energy sources are considered cleaner environmental options. Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Dlouhy obtained an internal memo outlining these controversial proposals, and she joins us now from Washington, D.C. First, what is the administration trying to do?

Jennifer Dlouhy: Well, I mean, they're essentially looking at an extraordinary intervention in the power markets to try to save these coal and nuclear power plants that are struggling to make money in the face of competition from cheap natural gas. And they've dusted off the law books and settled essentially on two pretty obscure statutes to try to do this, to order grid operators to buy power from these at-risk plants, these plants at risk of closure; and to set up a national electric production reserve to help in times of emergency.

Hari Sreenivasan: So, is the rationale then that this is a national security issue, that the grid needs to be stable?

Jennifer Dlouhy: Absolutely. They're asserting that this is a national security concern, that the grid is threatened by the premature closures of these plants. You know, they argue that, you know, nuclear plants and coal power plant, they have fuel on site, so they're a little bit more durable and resilient. They can snap back more quickly after an emergency or cyber attack. This is the assertion that the energy department is making, and they're saying, you know, our defense department installations are 99% dependent on the U.S. Electric grid, and that the grid itself is threatened when coal plants and nuclear plants retire because that means that we have more natural gas power, we're more dependent on natural gas power, and we're more dependent on renewable power that doesn't get produced around the clock.

Hari Sreenivasan: Another line of thinking would be if the military is so dependent on specific types of energy, shouldn't they actually diversify to make sure that they have resiliency after a storm? I'm assuming that some of the critics are pointing to a different type of logic here.

Jennifer Dlouhy: Right, absolutely. You know, the critics say that you can make our grid more durable. And in fact it has become more reliable because it is becoming more diverse by, you know, we're getting our power increasingly from a wider array of sources and that that actually helps buffer us from emergencies. You know, what's interesting is the energy department and the administration is rooting its argument here in national security, probably partly for legal reasons, to help buffer them from a legal challenge down the road. But the energy department's own analysis has found that the grid is more reliable because it has power coming from a wider array of sources.

Hari Sreenivasan: The speaking of those legal challenges, I'm assuming this is gonna get sorted out in the courts. Nothing actually happened as of yesterday or tomorrow. What's the likely timeline of this now?

Jennifer Dlouhy: Well, I think we're looking at... most analysts I talked to look at the memo that I obtained and the action that we've seen over the past couple of days and think some action is going to happen in coming weeks. It will probably be a directive from the energy department spelling out, you know, the logistics of this plan, exactly what grid operators have to do. But opponents, you know, whether it's the oil industry, the wind producers and environmentalists, they've all indicated that they plan to march right into federal court and to file challenges to this. Again, you know, I think the fact that the energy department is rooting this in national security is an effort to insulate itself. It is also a temporary intervention planned for only two years. But the courts will decide. I think that's almost a given at this point.

Hari Sreenivasan: Jennifer Dlouhy from Bloomberg joining us from Washington, thanks so much.

Jennifer Dlouhy: Thank you.

哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：本周煤炭及核电站运营商们得到了特朗普政府的提振。总统命令能源部长瑞克·佩里“立即采取措施”，保护那些长年无利运转的工厂免遭关闭。提案包括强制电网运营商购买煤电及核电，虽然天然气及可替代性能源更加清洁。布隆伯格记者珍妮佛·德鲁伊获得了一份内部备忘录，其中对这些具有争议的提案进行了概述，现在她从华盛顿特区加入我们。首先，政府在尝试做什么？

珍妮佛·德鲁伊：嗯，我的意思是，他们本质上是对电力市场进行一次重大干预，试图拯救那些面对廉价天然气竞争而努力盈利的煤电及核电站。他们拿出了不常使用的/蹩脚的法律，并选出了两个基本来说非常晦涩的法规，试图让电网运营商从这些处在危险中的电厂购买电力，因为这些电厂面临倒闭风险；他们试图建立一个全国性的电力生产储备库，以帮助那些身陷危机的电厂继续运营下去。

哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：那么，是不是因为，它是一个涉及国家安全的问题，电网需要稳定？

珍妮佛·德鲁伊：当然。他们声称这是一个国家安全问题，如果这些电厂过早关闭，电网将会受到威胁。你知道，他们认为，核电及煤电厂，它们就地取料，所以它们灵活耐用。在遭受紧急或网络攻击后，他们可以更快地得到恢复。能源部正在断言，他们说，我们国防部的军事设备99%依赖美国电网，如果煤炭及核电厂关闭，电网本身将受到威胁，因为这意味着我们得更多地使用天然气进行发电，（也就是）我们更加依赖天然气发电，更加依赖于不可再生能源发电，而这些能源并非取之不尽，用之不竭。

哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：另一种思路是，如果军方如此依赖于特定类型的能源，难道他们不应该进行多样化选择，以确保他们在遭遇风波后保持韧性吗？我认为有些批评家在这里指出了一种不同的逻辑。

珍妮佛·德鲁伊：是的，没错。你知道，批评人士们说，你可以让我们的电网更加耐用。事实上，它变得更加可靠，因为它变得越来越多样化，你知道，我们获取电力的来源越来越广泛，这实际上有助于我们应对紧急情况。你知道，有趣的是能源部和政府在国家安全的问题上争论不休，也许部分是出于法律原因，以帮助他们免遭在此方面的法律挑战。但能源部根据自己的分析发现，电网更加可靠，因为它的能源来源更加广泛。

哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：谈到这些法律挑战，我想这会在法庭上得到解决。过去没有发生任何事情，未来也不会发生。现在此事有怎样可能的时间规划？

珍妮佛·德鲁伊：嗯，我想我们正在看…大多数分析家们都在看我获得的备忘录以及过去几天里我们所看到的行动，他们认为未来几周内会有一些动作。这很可能是能源部的一个指令，你知道，是这个计划的流程，确切地说是电网运营商必须做的内容。但各反对者，你知道，无论是石油产业、风能生产商还是环保主义者，他们都表示，他们计划进军联邦法院，并对此提出挑战。再说一次，你知道，我认为能源部在国家安全中根植这个计划，是想撇清自己。这也是一个时限仅两年的临时干预计划。但法院将做出裁决。我认为这几乎是这一点上的一个假设。

哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：来自布隆伯格的珍妮佛·德鲁伊，从华盛顿加入我们，非常感谢。

珍妮佛·德鲁伊：谢谢你。