Trouble for Baseload Electric Power Generators?

It is not clear what combinations of marketplace factors in what hierarchy of importance are creating the situation nationwide, as described in the the following link:

http://www.energycentral.com/news/study-finds-states-scrambling-retain-baseload-power-natural-gas-generation-also-risk?utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=WEEKLY_NEWS&utm_content=294443&utm_source=2017_02_17

Are we seeing intermittent renewable generators muscling opportunistically into baseload generation for fire sale kwhr grid delivery prices when the renewables are in near peak generation mode? If so, as this trend amplifies, the reality of grid intermittent renewable/conventional peaking and baseload parity, at least during short, somewhat random periods, will be the new normal.

Over the years various mavens have opined that when intermittent renewables feeding a particular region of the grid hit a combined nameplate capacity of 20 per cent that of the baseload 24/7 generation in the region, something like the phenomenon discussed in the link would occur. From what is presented in the link, at least with respect to the Zero Emission Credit (EZC) schemes, it appears the electric power consumers (and renewable generators) will be subsidizing conventional power producers to resolve the financial stress felt by conventional power producers.

A concept worth considering may be to levelize the playing field a bit by mandating through a regulatory regime that some portion of the peak range of intermittent renewable generation be directed to electron storage for dispatch during comparatively off-peak intermittent renewable generation/higher grid power demand periods to the extent that those generators can arbitrage the value of their gross annual power sales and recover the expense sustained by them in creating and operating their electron storage systems. This regulatory approach may be more of a win-win for all parties by making grid parity more real than apparent for all forms of generation.

Opinions?