{"id":16058,"date":"2017-07-28T15:41:50","date_gmt":"2017-07-28T19:41:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=16058"},"modified":"2017-11-17T10:58:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T15:58:59","slug":"waiting-for-perry-leaked-draft-gives-us-a-glimpse-into-the-study-he-should-release","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2017\/07\/28\/waiting-for-perry-leaked-draft-gives-us-a-glimpse-into-the-study-he-should-release\/","title":{"rendered":"Waiting for Perry: Leaked draft gives us a glimpse into the study he should release"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"It\u2019s been 100 days (and counting) since Secretary Perry ordered the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a 60-day study<\/a> of the U.S. electricity system. We expect the final report to be issued any day now.<\/p>\n

The initial focus of the study was clear: to determine whether renewable energy policies or regulations have accelerated the retirement of coal and nuclear plants. Perry himself admitted the so-called study was intended to reassess \u201cpolitically driven policies driven by a hostility to coal,\u201d implying he intends to use the study to discriminate against renewables in favor of\u00a0dirty, expensive coal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But a bombshell recently hit. A leaked draft of the study<\/a> seems to contradict Secretary Perry\u2019s pro-coal thesis and rhetoric.<\/p>\n

The draft is thoughtful, and it boils down to some conclusions that Secretary Perry\u2019s political appointees \u2013 ahem, editors \u2013 will be hard pressed to massage into policy recommendations that call for more coal. Namely, America\u2019s grid reliability remains strong with more clean energy and less coal.<\/p>\n

Top 5 takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n

Environmental Defense Fund conducted a detailed analysis of the draft, outlining the top five takeaways that demonstrate a clean grid is a reliable grid. EDF\u2019s analysis can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

1 \u2013 \u201cBaseload\u201d resources, as Perry defines them, are not necessary to preserve grid reliability<\/strong><\/p>\n

Secretary Perry refers to coal and nuclear plants as \u201cbaseload power plants,\u201d and wants them to appear as critical to grid reliability. But \u201cbaseload\u201d is not even a term industry uses to describe reliability.<\/p>\n

The draft notes that \u201cbaseload\u201d is a dated term and is not a core ingredient of reliability.<\/p>\n

\u201c[B]aseload power was useful to a well-functioning grid over the decades from 1960 to 1990, when these plants were initially built. But with technology and market changes, the bulk power system has changed markedly and high-value market and reliability require different services and capabilities to attain high reliability and resilience.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words, America\u2019s energy system is evolving, and coal and nuclear plants aren\u2019t needed like they used to be.<\/p>\n

[Tweet “Waiting for Perry: Leaked draft gives us a glimpse into the study he should release”]<\/p>\n

2 \u2013 Coal and nuclear plants have been retiring primarily due to low gas prices and flattened demand<\/strong><\/p>\n

The draft study concludes that many baseload retirements are consistent with observed market forces, stating quite plainly, \u201cMany baseload plant retirements are not premature.\u201d Nor are they the result of regulations:<\/p>\n

\u201cRetirements have been due primarily to flattened demand and low electric prices and the inability to compete successfully due to plant age, inefficiency and capital needs rather than regulatory burdens.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The draft cites outside studies that address the cause of baseload power plant retirements, noting the key role of low natural gas prices and flattened demand.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: You can\u2019t blame coal\u2019s woes on renewable energy.<\/p>\n

3 \u2013 <\/strong>The U.S. grid is operating reliably, with ample resources to meet demand<\/strong><\/p>\n

This quote pretty much says it all: \u201cMost of the common metrics for grid reliability suggest that the grid is in good shape despite the retirement of many baseload power plants.\u201d<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s more. Reserve margins \u2013 a measure of whether the grid has extra energy capacity to satisfy potential demand \u2013 are \u201ccomfortably or significantly higher than the levels which would raise a resource adequacy flag or signal potential reliability problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

4 \u2013 Renewable energy sources like wind or solar can improve grid reliability<\/strong><\/p>\n

The draft includes an entire section named \u201cHigh levels of wind penetration can be integrated into the grid without harming reliability.\u201d<\/p>\n

The reality is, renewables can be \u2013 and have already been \u2013 integrated into the grid, and reliability remains strong.<\/p>\n

The vice president of Texas\u2019 grid operator, ERCOT, himself recently confirmed<\/a> “We can perform reliably with renewable generation; there are just things you have to do with renewables that you don’t have to do with (conventional) power generation.”<\/p>\n

5 \u2013 Clean energy can lower costs for customers<\/strong><\/p>\n

The draft carefully points out that future electricity costs are hard to predict. But it suggests a diversified fuel mix, including more renewable energy, can help control costs to customers.<\/p>\n

For example, the draft reports that:<\/p>\n