{"id":16863,"date":"2017-12-12T14:15:13","date_gmt":"2017-12-12T19:15:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=16863"},"modified":"2018-01-19T11:10:27","modified_gmt":"2018-01-19T16:10:27","slug":"new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/","title":{"rendered":"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

BLOG UPDATE \u2013 DECEMBER 20, 2017<\/strong><\/p>\n

PSEG\u2019s bill aimed at subsidizing<\/a> its two aging nuclear power plants was passed out of New Jersey\u2019s Senate Environment and Energy Committee and Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee today, December 20. If enacted, this customer-funded bailout would require all New Jersey electric customers to pay $300 million for an unlimited number of years to keep the plants in operation, adding an extra $40 a year to each customer\u2019s electric bill.<\/em><\/p>\n

The availability of low-carbon energy and local jobs are both legitimate reasons to be concerned about the premature retirement of New Jersey\u2019s nuclear plants, but a customer-funded bailout is not the answer. A time-bounded zero-emissions credit<\/a>, tailored to worker protections, community considerations, and a commitment to accelerate the adoption of clean energy should have been considered. Though PSEG admits these plants are profitable, the utility giant still hasn\u2019t provided any documentation or analysis to show these facilities are in need of financial assistance.<\/em><\/p>\n

December 12, 2017<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013<\/strong> The New Jersey State legislature is entertaining a lame duck proposal by the Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), the parent company of New Jersey’s largest utility, Public Service Gas & Electric (PSE&G) to subsidize two PSEG nuclear plants and to have it paid for by New Jersey electricity customers \u2013 in other words, a customer-funded bailout.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

We don\u2019t need a nuclear bailout, especially since the utility acknowledges that its plants are profitable<\/a>. To approve subsidies for PSEG\u2019s power plants during this time would be misguided because the company hasn\u2019t provided any proof that their facilities are in need of financial assistance to serve customers or what, if anything, customers would get out of the deal.<\/p>\n

Where\u2019s the proof?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is no proof that PSEG needs subsidies. PSEG has refused to release any<\/em> information or analysis that supports the idea that their nuclear plants are struggling financially. Has PSEG opened its books so independent market analysis can be conducted, or considered how its request will affect people\u2019s electricity bills? Has the legislature considered how this will impact clean energy investments, or jobs and economic development? The answer is no.<\/p>\n

Who pays for what?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bailing out these plants would surely pad PSEG\u2019s bottom line, but what about the customers who would foot the bill?<\/p>\n

PSEG has 2.2 million electricity customers throughout New Jersey. If this bill is passed, customers could pay $350 to $400-million dollars a year within the next 10 years. New Jersey residents and businesses will be ill-served if the focus of this debate remains solely on PSEG\u2019s corporate strategy.<\/p>\n

To protect customers\u2019 interest in the future, we must consider this bailout in context, not isolation. If the bailout PSEG is requesting is granted solely to support uneconomic nuclear plants, how will that impact state investment in other clean energy alternatives like energy efficiency and solar?<\/p>\n

How is PSEG double-dipping?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The New Jersey legislature isn\u2019t the only venue in which PSEG is seeking a bailout. PSEG was one of a few electric utilities that submitted comments in support of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry\u2019s proposed rule<\/a> currently before the Federal Electricity Regulatory Commission (FERC) to prop up aging coal and nuclear plants, rather than allowing market competition.<\/p>\n

Secretary Perry\u2019s proposal<\/a> has attracted nearly universal opposition \u2013 from gas, solar and wind companies, Democrat and Republican members of Congress, conservative organizations, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, free-market advocates, and others in the business community<\/a>. It\u2019s not an exaggeration to say the only groups that support the Department of Energy\u2019s proposal are those in the coal or nuclear industry who stand to benefit or those lobbying on their behalf. In fact, several utility companies that own fossil fuel assets came out against the DOE proposal because they believe in competitive markets.<\/p>\n

Where do we go from here?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s slow down. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the premature retirement of these plants, including the loss of low carbon-emitting energy sources before the transition to clean energy is complete and the loss of jobs and contributions to the local tax base. But the issues are complex and can\u2019t be considered in a rushed lame duck legislative session.<\/p>\n

Before the debate continues, and certainly before there\u2019s any decision on whether or not to provide subsidies, PSEG must provide proof that its plants are in financial distress, and an independent analysis using all available market data must be conducted.<\/p>\n

Moving in favor of PSEG\u2019s proposed bailout now would put the state\u2019s economy and energy future on the wrong course. These issues are too complex and too important to be rammed through.<\/p>\n

Make sure your State Senator and Assemblymember know where you stand. Take action today<\/a>, and tell them you don\u2019t want to pay to prop up PSEG\u2019s already-profitable nuclear plants.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Photo source:\u00a0EaglesFanInTampa at English Wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BLOG UPDATE \u2013 DECEMBER 20, 2017 PSEG\u2019s bill aimed at subsidizing its two aging nuclear power plants was passed out of New Jersey\u2019s Senate Environment and Energy Committee and Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee today, December 20. If enacted, this customer-funded bailout would require all New Jersey electric customers to pay $300 million for an …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5629,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42996,281,27600],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-16863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-smart-power","category-new-jersey","category-utilities"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nNew Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it. - Energy Exchange<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it. - Energy Exchange\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BLOG UPDATE \u2013 DECEMBER 20, 2017 PSEG\u2019s bill aimed at subsidizing its two aging nuclear power plants was passed out of New Jersey\u2019s Senate Environment and Energy Committee and Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee today, December 20. If enacted, this customer-funded bailout would require all New Jersey electric customers to pay $300 million for an ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Energy Exchange\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-12-12T19:15:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-19T16:10:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/38\/files\/2017\/12\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Mary Barber\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Mary Barber\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Mary Barber\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/07e6341a6919e8a702ae3857b90c3fdf\"},\"headline\":\"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it.\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-12-12T19:15:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-19T16:10:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":831,\"commentCount\":2,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/38\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Energy\",\"New Jersey\",\"Utility Business Models\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/\",\"name\":\"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it. - Energy Exchange\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/38\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-12-12T19:15:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-19T16:10:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/07e6341a6919e8a702ae3857b90c3fdf\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/38\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/38\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/2017\\\/12\\\/12\\\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Energy Exchange\",\"description\":\"Accelerating the clean energy revolution\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/07e6341a6919e8a702ae3857b90c3fdf\",\"name\":\"Mary Barber\",\"description\":\"As Director of Regulatory & Legislative Affairs, Mary Barber focuses on energy policy in New York and New Jersey.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.edf.org\\\/people\\\/mary-barber\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/energyexchange\\\/author\\\/mbarber\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it. - Energy Exchange","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it. - Energy Exchange","og_description":"BLOG UPDATE \u2013 DECEMBER 20, 2017 PSEG\u2019s bill aimed at subsidizing its two aging nuclear power plants was passed out of New Jersey\u2019s Senate Environment and Energy Committee and Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee today, December 20. If enacted, this customer-funded bailout would require all New Jersey electric customers to pay $300 million for an ...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/","og_site_name":"Energy Exchange","article_published_time":"2017-12-12T19:15:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-19T16:10:27+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/38\/files\/2017\/12\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Mary Barber","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Mary Barber","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/"},"author":{"name":"Mary Barber","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/#\/schema\/person\/07e6341a6919e8a702ae3857b90c3fdf"},"headline":"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it.","datePublished":"2017-12-12T19:15:13+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-19T16:10:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/"},"wordCount":831,"commentCount":2,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/38\/files\/2017\/12\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg","articleSection":["Clean Energy","New Jersey","Utility Business Models"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/","name":"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it. - Energy Exchange","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/38\/files\/2017\/12\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg","datePublished":"2017-12-12T19:15:13+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-19T16:10:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/#\/schema\/person\/07e6341a6919e8a702ae3857b90c3fdf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/38\/files\/2017\/12\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/38\/files\/2017\/12\/Hope_Creek-Salem_Nuclear-300x225.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/12\/12\/new-jerseys-considering-a-nuclear-bailout-heres-why-we-dont-need-it\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Jersey\u2019s considering a nuclear bailout. Here\u2019s why we don\u2019t need it."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/","name":"Energy Exchange","description":"Accelerating the clean energy revolution","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/#\/schema\/person\/07e6341a6919e8a702ae3857b90c3fdf","name":"Mary Barber","description":"As Director of Regulatory & Legislative Affairs, Mary Barber focuses on energy policy in New York and New Jersey.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/mary-barber"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/author\/mbarber\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16863","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5629"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16863"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=16863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}