|
|
|
|
||
Half a Cheer for Trump Coal Order; Critics have better fixes for grid stability, but try getting them past NIMBYs.Half a Cheer for Trump Coal Order; Critics have better fixes for grid stability, but try getting them past NIMBYs.Jenkins, Holman W, Jr. Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y.Donald Trump doesn't qualify even as a George W. Bush substitute, much less a Cato Institute acolyte, when it comes to adhering to the principle of nonintervention in markets. This we knew going in. But his latest on behalf of coal miners at least waves a fig leaf in the direction of a genuine problem. A presidential missive this month to the Energy Department could eventually result in grid operators, in the name of national security, being ordered to buy power from large coal and nuclear plants that otherwise would be shut down due to unprofitability. Such an order is somewhat unprecedented, but the fainting spells of energy lobbyists are hard to take, especially from a solar-and-wind promoter at the American Council on Renewable Energy who complained of "arbitrary market interventions." Energy decisions are already highly politicized. That's the problem, especially the mandates in many states to keep ratcheting up the share supplied by intermittent power sources. This has been coupled in the past decade with an epochal squeezing out of coal and nuclear in favor of cheaper natural gas. How much of a problem is uncertain, but the growing interdependence of the power grid and the gas pipeline system introduces a vulnerability that regulators have hardly started to grapple with. Gas plants need just-in-time fuel delivery from a pipeline network; a coal plant can store fuel for 90 days on site; a nuclear plant needs refueling every two years. New England is a dramatic case in point. It gets half its power from gas, up from 15% a decade ago, and is desperately short of pipeline capacity even in relatively mild winters. All agree the problem is new and serious, including the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which rejected a Trump entreaty on behalf of coal and nuclear earlier this year as unripe. The retirement of whole categories of large power plants raises "a very important issue and a tricky one," its chairman acknowledged to Congress in April. The old integrated utility was inefficient for many reasons, and wholesale electricity deregulation has largely paid off for consumers. But under one roof existed the incentive to make the unattractive investments, and collect from customers for them, that made sure the power stayed on 99.999% of the time. That FirstEnergy Solutions, bankrupt owner of three nuclear plants, put the issue before the Trump administration is hardly a surprise in a political system like ours. If you think critics of what would plainly be a bailout are not self-interested too, think again. Local utilities oppose the order because they would have to fight to get permission from anti-Trump state regulators to pass the costs along to consumers. Gas and oil interests are opposed since they would lose market share. Environmentalists are loath to risk their standing among green voters by standing up for carbon-free nuclear. Critics say there are better solutions to the growing risk of dynamic grid instability: Invest in more pipelines. Invest in new transmission lines. Build lots of combined-cycle gas plants that can fire up quickly. Which would be neat if you could get these ideas past not-in-my-backyard activists. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo finds himself in a bidding war with his primary opponent, actress Cynthia Nixon, for green voters. He recently declared opposition to any new pipelines or power plants in his state, though New York's grid operator says both are urgently needed to support the governor's lofty wind and solar goals. New England is in the worst shape of all, having killed multiple projects for new pipelines and even a transmission line to bring hydropower from Canada. Local electric prices are 50% higher than the national average. Every winter, thanks to an overtaxed pipeline network, the six-state region descends into a "precarious position," according to New England's grid manager. California recently found itself paying Arizona to shut down its own solar plants to buy excess California solar power. Their common goal: to avoid costly stop-starts of their conventional power plants. This is insane. Los Angeles simultaneously is studying how to convert to green power while spending millions to upgrade three local gas plants inconveniently sited inside the Los Angeles basin (where air quality is paramount) to guard the city against instabilities created by California's statewide renewables mandate. This also is insane. Everywhere, in the U.S. and beyond, the wind-and-solar fantasies of local politicians boil down to an unspoken expectation that power will always be available from somewhere far away to bail them out when local wind and sun are uncooperative. One ally Mr. Trump should have but doesn't: Fraudulent greens who whine about the meaningless Paris climate treaty and yet won't lift a finger to keep open nuclear power plants that generate carbon-free energy. Once gone, these unique and possibly precious facilities won't be coming back. |
return to message board, top of board |