Author Archives: Colin Meehan

Don’t Be Fooled By Recent Lows: The Texas Energy Crunch Is Still A Big Issue

By | Bio | Published: May 10, 2013

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

This past month, we experienced refreshing, cool and somewhat wet weather in Texas.  However, those working on energy issues know all too well that this weather change doesn't mean we have escaped the worst of the “energy crunch.”  As the farmers say: “If you don’t like the weather in Texas, wait ten minutes and it will change.”  Despite cooler temperatures, an unplanned power plant outage during a warm day late last month forced the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to issue an advisory, demonstrating just how quickly things can change.

At the same time, recent ERCOT reports indicate that reserves will be tight this summer due to an anticipated record level of high energy demand and stunted growth in new electricity resources – thus making conservation notices likely and rolling outages probable.  All of this points to the important role conservation programs, like demand response, can play for ERCOT.  Some ERCOT staff and stakeholders have recognized the importance of demand response, which allow customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use in response to a signal from utilities.  Others have called explicitly for programs that pay customers for reducing energy the same way generators are paid for producing energy, an approach EDF has advocated for several years.

ERCOT and a few retail electric providers already have conservation programs, albeit limited, in pilot phases that compensate customers for their participation.  But in comparison to other regions, Texas lags far behind other states – despite having the highest potential for conservation and clean energy resources in the U.S.  That’s why the three remaining weeks of the legislative session are so important: two critical pieces of legislation that would open up demand response in Texas to meet our electricity reliability goals and drive further market competition are under review.

Senate Bill (SB) 1351 from Senate Business & Commerce Chairman John Carona would require ERCOT to allow customers to participate in all competitive energy markets; the bill passed the Senate earlier this week and is now on its way to the House of Representatives.  SB 1351 is an excellent piece of legislation to propel demand response in Texas, but alone it is not enough to ensure Texas can keep the lights on during the hottest summer days.  A separate bill from Senator Kirk Watson, Senate Bill (SB) 1280, would accomplish just that by requiring ERCOT to secure enough demand response to meet its reliability needs if existing resources fall short; the bill passed unanimously out of the Senate Business & Commerce committee.

These bills will make all the difference this summer and for many summers to come.  The Texas Legislature has the opportunity to ensure that ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission (PUC) have all the necessary tools to avoid rolling blackouts over the next several years as we wait for new energy resources to come online. Read More »

Posted in Demand Response, Legislation, Texas Energy Crunch | Leave a comment

Renewables BuyBack Bill Pays Good Money For Clean Energy

By | Bio | Published: April 15, 2013

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange blog.

Picture this: You live in Texas, the state with the most solar energy potential in the U.S. Knowing this, you decide to install solar panels on your home’s rooftop because, in Texas, you can lease – rather than buy – the entire solar energy system. The option to lease allows you to take advantage of a low monthly payment that will be offset by the savings on your energy bill, rather than face high upfront investment costs.

Now, while you are at work during the day, your panels are actually putting excess, unused energy back onto the grid, when electricity is most expensive. And, that surplus of energy isn’t just wasted; it is used by your electric company to serve other customers. In most states, electric companies buy this power back at a retail rate. But, in Texas it’s not quite that simple. In order to see any form of pay back, you have to be a lucky customer of one of only three retailers – TXU Energy, Reliant Energy and Green Mountain Energy – that offer “renewable buyback” rates in Texas. If you happen to buy electricity from one of the other 50 retailers serving residential providers across the state, though, you could always switch over to a renewable buyback program. But there is no guarantee that you will be paid a fair market value for the 25+ years your solar energy system is expected to last.

Making a long-term investment to protect against highly-fluctuating, unpredictable electric rates is a difficult decision, and making that decision without knowing whether you are guaranteed fair compensation is nearly impossible. This is one of the key reasons why Texas lags behind the nation in solar adoption. Fortunately, there is a solution in the works. Senate Bill 1239 from state Senator Jose Rodriguez seeks to guarantee homeowners, schools and religious facilities at least a minimum buyback rate based on wholesale market energy prices, which were about 50 percent lower than retail rates in 2011, on average. The bill has a similar impact for rural electric co-operative, municipal and independently-owned utility customers, ensuring that any homeowner, school or religious entity that installs a properly-sized solar energy system will be compensated comparable to the way a fossil fuel power plant is compensated in the wholesale market. Read More »

Posted in Renewable Energy, Solar, Texas Energy Crunch | Tagged | Leave a comment

El Paso Electric Inks Solar Deal That Is Cheaper Than Coal

By | Bio | Published: February 7, 2013

This commentary was originally posted on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

On the heels of our blog post last week, showing how competitive wind and solar power have become in recent years, is news of possibly the cheapest solar deal yet in the U.S. (that we know of publicly, at least). Even more interesting is the fact that the deal was made between Texas-based El Paso Electric and First Solar, an Arizona-based solar manufacturer. While it’s a little sad that a Texas-based company has to go to New Mexico to build solar, it’s at least heartening that they could partner with a U.S. company to get the project done. First Solar has been one of the leading solar manufacturers for several years, and last year their suite of projects made them the #2 solar panel supplier in the world (up from #4.)

Marty Howell, the City of El Paso’s Director of Economic Development and Sustainability, said that “El Paso Electric’s recent solar contract with First Solar is another example of our great partnership with El Paso Electric and how El Pasoans are working together to make our community more sustainable.”

This new 50 megawatt (MW) project in New Mexico comes in at 5.79¢/kilowatt hour (kWh), which is almost half the cost of a new “advanced” coal power plant (12-14¢/kWh), according to the Energy Information Administration. It is helpful to note that the deal did benefit from subsidies, as detailed in an article by Renewable Energy World, including the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) – which provides renewable energy projects with a tax credit equal to roughly 30 percent of a project’s costs. If we were to remove that credit and the benefit of local incentives, the project would come in right around the cost of a new advanced coal plant, even if the coal plant lacks carbon capture and storage technology.

Time will tell whether this deal is an exception or the new rule, but growing signs of price parity for solar power, and the continued growth of competitive wind energy, consistently point to a critical shift in our energy infrastructure. With continued declines expected in both wind and solar prices, this First Solar project seems more likely to become the norm than not. The only question is whether utilities and regulators are ready for such rapid growth in wind and solar power.

In New Mexico, they certainly seem to be ready. However, in many other states, including El Paso Electric’s home state of Texas, that’s still an open question.

Posted in coal, Solar | Leave a comment

NERC Demands Action From ERCOT To Keep The Lights On In Texas

By | Bio | Published: January 14, 2013

Last week was a busy one in Texas, with the beginning of the 83rd Legislative session attention was focused on incoming lawmakers, both seasoned and freshmen, and the opportunity that only happens every two years to address serious issues in Texas including water scarcity, education, tax issues, and of course energy issues.

So it's understandable that no one seems to have noticed a strongly worded letter to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) last Monday demanding more action to ensure electric reliability in Texas, and asking ERCOT to report back to NERC by April 30 on additional actions taken.  NERC isn't some federal boogey man either; it's a corporation founded by the electric industry to create commonly accepted standards for electric reliability across North America, usually through voluntary compliance.  President Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the corporation "the authority to create and enforce compliance with Reliability Standards," which is where this letter comes into play.

In their 2012 report, NERC highlighted ERCOT as the only region in North America that was not maintaining adequate electric reserves to meet demand, and with this letter they made it very clear that the actions taken to date have not done enough to mitigate that risk.  In the letter, NERC President Gerry Cauley notes that the PUC and ERCOT are continuing to address energy reliability issues, but finds that "solutions have not yet sufficiently materialized to address NERC’s reserve margin concern."

Cauley goes on to say that "it is still unclear to us how ERCOT intends to mitigate issues that may arise on the current trajectory and when new resources may be available to meet growing demand."  So according to the corporation whose membership consists mostly of utilities, grid operators, large and small customers, and electric regulators, the actions that the PUC and ERCOT have taken at this point are not enough to ensure we'll have reliable electric supply, risking blackouts as soon as this summer.

As lawmakers settle into Austin for the next few months they'll certainly be paying close attention to this issue, though many have indicated they would prefer that ERCOT and the PUC develop the solutions to this problem.  Cauley's letter serves as notice that the PUC and ERCOT need to be more aggressive if they want to ensure a reliable supply of power in Texas.  Certainly both agencies are putting serious time and effort into keeping the lights on in Texas, including effort so expand existing demand response programs, but NERC clearly thinks they need to be doing more.

All of this reminds me of the Texas drought: a year ago it was a huge looming crises, but a break in the weather took everyone’s mind off of the drying rivers and lakes, even though they never really recovered.  Lately the drought has been back in the news as Texans realize that we're basically in the same place that we were in 2011.

No one could accuse ERCOT or the PUC of sitting idly by or pretending this risk isn't real. However, they have yet to send a strong enough signal to the market to spur investors in demand response or any other resources to develop new projects.  About the only thing that has been done is the extension of the federal production tax credit for wind energy, which has wind developers racing to build new projects in Texas.  The concern is that the solutions they've begun work on to date may not get us to where we need to be by this summer.

This letter is a reminder that the energy crunch hasn't gone away, things are not likely to change in the near term if serious action isn't taken soon. That is a risk we can't afford to take given a looming drought, a growing economy and a stagnant electric market.  NERC has asked ERCOT to report to them on their progress by April 30, near the end of our biennial legislative session, and one in which the critical PUC/ERCOT sunset legislation is expected to pass, maybe legislators should consider a similar request.

Posted in Demand Response, ERCOT, Texas Energy Crunch | 2 Responses

Pecan Street Inc. Researchers’ Report Receives Outstanding Paper Award

By | Bio | Published: December 11, 2012

Source: Pecan Street Inc.

With 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of solar power installed in 2011 and an expected 2.8 GW in 2012, it is safe to say that solar energy has solidified its role as an important part of our nation’s energy portfolio. Affordability, competitive financing and reduced greenhouse gases are just a few of the reasons why the number of solar installations has skyrocketed in the past several years.

Now, new research from Dr. Alexis Kwasinski, Dr. Fabian Uriarte, and Amir Toliyat, engineers from the University of Texas at Austin, sheds some light on how rapidly growing solar installations can work with the current electric grid. For their groundbreaking findings in "Effects of high penetration levels of residential photovoltaic generation," they were recently awarded an Outstanding Paper Award at the International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA) in November for their in-depth research and innovative solutions.

Jump started by a $10.4 million grant from the Department of Energy, Pecan Street Inc. is a “community-wide collaboration to fully reinvent the energy delivery system”  based in Austin, Texas.  This living ‘smart grid laboratory’ provided a perfect data collection site for the researchers. Pecan Street’s leadership focuses on developing new technologies that reinvent the way we create and use energy, so that residents drive electric vehicles, invest in cutting-edge technology and, of course, use solar panels.

The massive amount of data gathered from Pecan Street’s efforts provided researchers the opportunity to analyze solar energy’s effect on the three key characteristics of “power quality” (voltage level, voltage unbalance and power factor).  The researchers found that energy inflections (voltage levels and voltage unbalance) did not create any major concerns with the power grid, despite unfounded claims to the contrary by some solar critics.

Digging further into the data, the researchers unexpectedly found that power factor could become a real issue if solar installers don’t use modern equipment that provides for power factor support.  While the issue could become very real at higher levels of solar penetration, the solution is simple, cheap and currently available; it simply means installers should begin using newer models of solar panel “inverters,” which convert solar power into electricity that can be fed into your grid and home.

Inverters simply convert raw DC power to AC power (i.e. the type of electricity we need to use everyday household items). Maximizing the amount of electricity that is converted into usable power makes solar energy more competitive, ensuring that it will remain an important and growing part of our nation’s energy mix.

It’s exciting to see that these researchers are receiving accolades for their groundbreaking work, and international acclaim is always an excellent motivator for this kind of work, but it’s nice to be appreciated where you hang your hat too.  Fortunately that doesn’t seem to be a problem, since earlier this year Austinites voted in the Best of Austin 2012 award by the Austin Chronicle for Best Way to Turn Some Green Even Greener.  Their choice: Pecan Street Inc.

Posted in Pecan Street, smart grid | Leave a comment

ANGA's New Texas Report Serves Up A Heaping Helping Of ‘Number Salad’

By | Bio | Published: April 26, 2012

 This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog.

The American Natural Gas Association (ANGA) released a paper in March titled “Texas Natural Gas: Fuel for Growth,” to a lot of press, and rightly so.  The paper correctly cites several benefits of using and producing natural gas in Texas: it is produced in-state, has water use and air-quality benefits when compared to coal and helps to fund state and local governments through taxes. 

Unfortunately, the paper also makes some claims that are difficult to take seriously; perhaps the first warning sign should be that while the paper was presented as an economic analysis, the authors have no economic credentials.  Dr. Michael J. Economides, a chemical and biomolecular professor at the University of Houston, and petroleum engineering consultant Philip E. Lewis spend little time worrying about the details in this report, serving up a heaping helping of “number salad.”

For instance, the $7.7 billion “loss” is calculated by projecting the potential use of gas in Texas, if it had followed the national trend, against the actual use.  But in looking at the data, it’s not clear that the Texas fuel mix ever tracked the national fuel mix.  Even more importantly, looking at the authors’ own slides, Texas uses 20% more natural gas in its fuel mix than the nation.  If anything, the national fuel mix is following the trend set long ago by Texas —adding more natural gas and wind, while decreasing coal output.

What might shock the authors is that natural gas consumption in the electric power sector has increased by around 5,000 one thousand cubic feet of gas (MCF) since 2006, 800 MCF in transportation and nearly 10,000 MCF in the industrial sector. 

There are so many misleading statistics and inaccuracies that we could practically write a report on the report, but instead I’ll just focus on one aspect that stands out in particular. 

When it comes to comparing natural gas to coal power, the authors are quick to cite the many local benefits of using natural gas energy produced in Texas: it’s cleaner than coal and creates local jobs and a local tax base.  Wind energy has largely produced the same benefits: local wind power has brought jobs and a growing tax base and population to rural Texas counties that “had seen consistent, significant population losses since 1950.”  On top of the economic development benefits, where natural gas beats coal in reducing pollution, wind energy beats both by reducing pollution basically to zero.  But when it comes to discussing any of these benefits from wind energy in the report, the silence is deafening. 

Natural gas is reshaping our energy landscape.  And, done right—with the proper, mandatory environmental safeguards in place and reduced methane leakage rates—compared to coal plants, natural gas power plants offer other distinct air quality benefits.  It emits less greenhouse gases than coal when combusted and avoids mercury and other dangerous air pollutants that come from coal.

However, the same – and more – can be said about wind energy and Texas’ potential clean energy resources, including solar and geothermal power, among others.  Rather than pitting our local clean energy resources against each other as this report does, we should seek to expand and diversify our clean energy mix, reaping health, environmental, economic and security benefits.

Posted in Natural gas, Renewable Energy | Leave a comment

Austin Energy's Electric Rates Are Lower Than The Texas Public Policy Foundation Would Have You Believe

By | Bio | Published: February 22, 2012

(Source: www.inhabitat.com)

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog by Colin Meehan.

Austin Energy’s Rates: 13% Below the Average Rate in ERCOT’s Competitive Markets – After Accounting for the Proposed 12.5% Rate Increase

Austin Energy has been in the news a lot lately, and most often for some controversy around the ongoing rate review process.  What often gets lost in these heated discussions is that fact that Austin's heritage of clean energy and innovative approaches to economic development are firmly rooted in our city's electric utility, and that the utility allows city leaders to keep taxes low.  At the same time, Austin Energy's leadership often puts it in the crosshairs of groups that are ideologically opposed to clean energy and city owned utilities, and whether supported by facts or not, the opportunity to criticize Austin Energy has proven too difficult to resist.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is often one of the ringleaders in the crusade against clean energy as well as city owned utilities, and they're not going to let facts get in the way of scoring an ideological point.  In knocking Austin Energy and promoting their agenda, TPPF cherry picks data and uses coded language like the idea that customers "can choose" rates lower than Austin Energy's if they are in the competitive regions of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).  The truth is, for a customer in the competitive areas of ERCOT to maintain lower rates than Austin Energy they would have to change electric providers each month, and they’d have to be pretty lucky on top of it.

The problem is that the rates TPPF reference when they say customers can choose lower rates are usually introductory, variable or otherwise subject to increases not included in the rates that customers do choose.  What this means is that customers actually pay more than TPPF's selective math would suggest, but TPPF seems more concerned with scoring political points than what customers actually pay for their electricity.

Look at the data from a more logical point of view and you will see that competitive regions in ERCOT average higher residential rates than ERCOT's average rates.  In fact, ERCOT rates are kept low largely by municipal and co-operative utilities like Austin Energy, the customer owned utility model that TPPF criticizes in their latest missive.  The most recent data available for a real analysis of the rates Texans pay was released by the Energy Information Administration just a few months ago, including data through 2010.  As the chart below shows, Austin Energy's rates are well below the ERCOT average, and even farther below the average competitive market rate, despite TPPF's claims to the contrary.  

Even if you account for Austin's proposed 12.5% rate increase, the new rates are 13% below competitive rates in ERCOT. This calculation doesn’t even include the impact of increasing wholesale power rates in ERCOT, which increased about 50% between 2010 and 2011 in the South Zone (Austin Energy's location in the competitive market).  While it's too early to tell how the wholesale power price increase has impacted competitive retail rates, it's clear that Austin Energy's rates – even after the rate review is completed – will be below the competitive average.

As we talk about rates in our community and across Texas, it’s important to remain focused on factual analysis and avoid misleading assumptions driven more by ideology than a desire for real debate. Unfortunately, arguments like those put forward by TPPF don't contribute to an honest discourse; they mislead the public, distort reality, and threaten Austinite's low tax lifestyle.

Posted in TPPF, Utilities | 1 Response

An Interactive Guide To Governor Perry’s Fight To Protect Polluters

By | Bio | Published: February 16, 2012

Governor Rick Perry loves to talk about how bad frivolous lawsuits are for Texas; he feels so strongly that last year he made the reduction of these lawsuits an emergency issue for the Texas State Legislature as he prepared for his failed bid for the Republican nomination for President.  Speaking of frivolous lawsuits, Governor Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott have been pressing no less than 16 lawsuits against the Federal Government.

The majority of these lawsuits are part of Perry’s fight to protect polluters, and stop life-saving rules that have been under development by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – for decades in many cases.  These EPA rules will reduce toxic pollution, cut back on emergency room visits and childhood asthma, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that have exacerbated our current record-setting drought, according to Perry appointed State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon.

Today, the Texas Tribune posted an interactive feature that summarizes each of Texas’ lawsuits against the Federal Government.  In the case(s) of Texas vs. the EPA, however, Perry and Abbott’s litigiousness in defense of Texas polluters has been so complicated that the Tribune had to combine the EPA lawsuits into six different categories.  We’ve discussed previously the hypocrisy of Governor Perry’s “loser pays” legislation and his unwillingness to commit to repaying taxpayers all of the state and federal expenses from these frivolous lawsuits.  Governor Perry claims he will “always err on the side of life,” but his lawsuits to protect polluters over the health and lives of Texans flies in the face of what religious organizations consider “pro-life” EPA rules.  Hopefully the Tribune piece will bring this issue back into the forefront of the debate; while Perry spends his time and money on questionable lawsuits, back in Texas we’re facing real energy issues that require real solutions, not more political posturing.

Posted in Air Pollution, Drought, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs | Leave a comment

Demand Response: A Key Component In Texas’ Electricity Market. Why Isn’t The State Taking Advantage Of It?

By | Bio | Published: January 12, 2012

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog.

On Monday, the Texas Senate Business and Commerce Committee took up the critical issue of the impact of extreme drought conditions on electric generation capacity and state officials’ plans to respond to those risks. A number of important issues and policy solutions were raised, from on-bill financing of energy efficiency to renewable energy to send the right ‘market signals’ to incentivize the construction of new power plants. Public Utility Commission (PUC) Chair Donna Nelson singled out, in particular, the state’s energy efficiency and renewable energy goals. These policies have helped reduce pollution, saved customers money and have the added benefit of reducing our dependence on water for electricity production.

Another important part of the solution discussed was raised by a number of panelists: demand response (aka load management). The ability of end-use customers to reduce their use of electricity in response to power grid needs or economic signals has helped the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) avoid rolling blackouts and, in other regions of the country, it has helped markets avoid the need for new capacity. As ERCOT CEO Trip Doggett and PUC Chair Nelson pointed out in their testimony, demand response is a market competitive resource that uses no water and, as such, it may prove to be a valuable resource in view of the state's record drought.

The Texas Capacity Crunch – Obstacles and Opportunities
The historic drought of 2010-2011 has put Texas' conventional power plants at risk, threatening a return of the rolling blackouts caused by extreme winter conditions just a year ago. State Climatologist, Perry appointee John Nielsen-Gammon says, “Statistically we are more likely to see a third year of drought.”

At the same time, ERCOT faces a challenging capacity crunch caused largely by “low natural gas prices, an influx of low marginal cost wind power, increased wholesale market efficiencies, low wholesale power prices, tight credit markets” and other issues according to TXU Energy. With limited ability to invest new capital given the current market conditions, and over 11,000 MW of power dependent on water sources at historically low levels, Texas needs to tap into resources that can be deployed rapidly and require less capital and much less water.

Demand Response – Low Cost, Zero Water Resource
Fortunately Texas has ample resources to meet these needs with demand response. If allowed to participate fully in Texas’ energy markets as it does in other regions, demand response can benefit customers and increase grid reliability. Unfortunately Texas continues to lag behind other states and regions, which have seen market-competitive demand response grow rapidly as market barriers have been removed.

    • The definition of “demand response” is “end-use customers reducing their use of electricity in response to power grid needs or economic signals from a competitive wholesale market.”
    • The potential for cost competitive demand response is tremendous – according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Texas could add as much as 19 GW in capacity by 2019 if we open up our electric market to allow customers to compete alongside generators.

Texas currently is among the lowest states in terms of load management, despite having the highest potential by far according to FERC and the Brattle Group.

Source: FERC

Why Does Texas Lag the Nation in Demand Response?

  • In 2011, demand response amounted to 9% of the PJM’s (a grid operator in the Mid-Atlantic/Midwest) system peak demand, greatly benefitting customers and improving reliability.
  • At ERCOT, despite great potential, demand response only amounted to just over 2% of peak demand, limited by unnecessary market barriers.
  • Texas leads the nation in smart meter deployment, intended by the legislature to “facilitate demand response initiatives.” Why is ERCOT so far behind?

Market Barriers Prevent Customers from Competing in ERCOT

  • ERCOT’s legacy demand response program is capped at 1150 MW and is effectively limited to large industrials within ancillary services markets.
  • ERCOT’s Emergency Reliability Service is the only program in the market that allows any customer to participate if they qualify. The program is limited in scope (it can only be called on twice per year) and to date has been unable to reach the original goal of 500 MW. Despite these limitations, the program helped avoid rolling blackouts last summer.

Source: NERC

Regulators are Focused on Building New Power Plants

  • Instead of looking to all possible solutions, regulators seem focused only on how to get new power plants built.
  • Other grid operators have successfully created programs for smaller commercial and residential customers to compete through aggregation. In Texas, residential and small commercial customers have been put on the back burner.
  • Despite the PUC’s reluctance to act on other clean energy opportunities, such as the 500 MW non-wind RPS or increasing the energy efficiency standards, it is clear that these programs have been successful in creating clean, “water-proof” power.
  • In the midst of a capacity crunch caused by extreme drought and market structure problems, demand response provides an opportunity to address both by enabling cheaper, water-free capacity by simply opening markets to customers.

Posted in Renewable Energy, smart grid | Leave a comment

ERCOT Reliability: “It’s Complicated”

By | Bio | Published: December 20, 2011

It seems like only yesterday that ERCOT was issuing dire warnings of rolling blackouts as a direct result of regulations required by the court system to ensure cleaner, healthy air for Texans and our neighboring states.  Well, maybe not yesterday, but at least as recently as this month.  Buried deep within the report was ERCOT’s tacit acknowledgement that they have allowed companies to idle more than 1,000 MW of power plants because those plants are not economic in today’s hyper-competitive market.

(source: www.texastribune.org)

 Of course, no announcement made as much news as Luminant’s claim that they were shutting down two of their Monticello lignite power plant units in response to EPA regulations.  Those claims have been pretty well debunked over the last few months as people began to realize that market economics and poor planning were responsible for Luminant’s decision.  As we discussed in September, it was as convenient for Luminant to blame the EPA as it was reflexive of Texas politicians and regulators to threaten rolling blackouts as a result of Luminant’s decision.  ERCOT’s decision to let other power plants shut down for economic reasons calls those claims into serious question, and their recent decision(password required) that idling the Monticello units at the heart of this debate  does not threaten system reliability will hopefully end this cycle of unfounded recrimination and backtracking.

As ERCOT has made clear, the real threats to system reliability are of our own making: market failures have lead to a lack of proper signals to encourage the building of new power capacity; and this year’s record breaking drought, made more extreme by climate change, has threatened to shut down more than 11,000 MW of power plants.  What all of this means is that ERCOT’s reliability issues are far more complicated than a political slogan, and getting rid of sensible regulations that protect our children, elderly and general population from real health risks will do nothing to solve our problems. 

Instead of focusing on the easy political score, our leaders should be looking for real solutions that don’t pose risks to human health or to our water supply.  The solutions are out there: dry-cooled power plants, energy efficiency programs like demand response, as well as wind, solar and other non-water consuming renewable energy. 

The most recent decision by ERCOT that idling Luminant’s power plants poses no threat to grid reliability should end the cycle of unfounded accusations for political gain.  It should focus our state leadership on solutions that will work instead of distractions that only delay solving the problem.  It should also serve as a signal to those who are all too ready to accept unfounded claims for the sake of a good story or a convenient target. When it comes to ERCOT and reliability, the issues are complicated, but the solutions are out there and it will take real focus and effort to prevent Texas from experiencing the same rolling blackouts we had last winter.  It’s winter again (even if it’s just barely starting to feel like it), and next summer looks to be another scorcher. We don’t have a lot of time, so let’s get to work.

Posted in Air Pollution, Climate change, Drought, Extreme weather, Uncategorized | Leave a comment