When coal/gas/nuclear power generation is the mercy of whatever administration happens to be in Washington D.C. at the moment (which is in increments of four years, far shorter time than it takes to get a return on investment for a new power plant), what sane investor or capital firm is going to bankroll the upkeep or development of new power plants that could be rendered dead in the water with little notice?
All of the government incentives are on the side of renewables, and against coal/gas/nuclear. Public sentiment, foolish (and shallow) though it may be, is likewise on the side of renewables.
The company boards probably see the writing on the wall and are simply saying ‘okay, this is what you all want; you can have it’.
It’s going to suck for a lot of people (especially when they realize how badly solar and wind are going to fare on our grid as they become more common), but that’s the way it rolls when the energy industry is as hamstrung by Washington D.C. as it is.
Yes, this is the big problem with “industrial policy.” Companies get whipsawed every four or eight years when the winds out of DC suddenly change direction. And, as you say, when the planning, design and construction period is 10 to 15 years, there is absolutely no way to do any sensible economic planning.
You’re probably right that the boards see this and finally capitulated to the inevitable. “OK, you want ‘renewables’? We’ll give it to you good and hard, customers be damned.”