Quantcast
Energy
iStock

What's Resilience? DOE Should Say Before Spending Your Money

By Jennifer Chen

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently proposed that American consumers further subsidize certain power plants (essentially, coal and nuclear power plants) by paying them billions of dollars to stockpile 90 days worth of fuel onsite. This proposal hinges on the idea that onsite fuel will somehow provide the electric grid with "resilience." But the DOE never explained what "resilience" means, let alone how making coal piles bigger would help.

The proposed rule is now before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the electric grid authority, which is taking public comment. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) recommended that FERC reject the DOE proposal and outlined a framework for what developing a concept for resilience should include, at minimum. Comparing DOE's proposal to this framework exposes the proposal for what it really is—an irrational fixation on bailing out uneconomic, polluting power plants without regard for impacts on consumers.


A process of developing and procuring resilience-related services should at least include these basic steps:

  • Define "resilience" and why it is different from reliability (which consumers are already paying for);
  • Establish the means to measure and compare the "resilience" of various elements of the grid in the generation, transmission and distribution sectors;
  • Prioritize which issues to address and consider alternatives;
  • Develop services addressing those issues; and
  • Allow all resources to compete in providing the services to minimize the costs for consumers.

These steps are common sense, but DOE's proposal fails to even attempt any of them.

Fundamentally, the DOE proposal fails to define what "resilience" is exactly—including how it might differ from reliability (which is well defined and has enforceable standards). Nor does it provide guidance as to how resilience can be measured. The DOE's proposal also fails to identify what parts of the electric grid should be prioritized in improving grid "resilience."

Resilience, whether it means the ability to keep running during challenging conditions, or the speed at which the system can recover after an outage, is a grid-wide issue, not simply a matter of how big the coal piles are. For example, if transmission and distribution lines are down (as is usually the main cause of customer outages) no amount of onsite fuel would get power to consumers.

The next logical step, which DOE also failed to attempt, is to determine in a resource-neutral way how to provide services to ensure resilience. Grid operators already have an arsenal they can draw from to respond to extreme weather events and supply disruptions, including deploying renewable generation with energy storage, and paying customers who can delay or reduce electricity use to do so. These solutions focus on grid flexibility, not on stockpiled fuel, which has proved useless in extreme weather. During this year's hurricane season, coal piles became too wet and several nuclear plants went offline. During the frigid Polar Vortex, coal piles froze.

What might help resilience? Leading experts have not recommended stockpiling onsite fuel. In fact, the DOE and other analyses point out the ability of fuel-free resources to ensure "resilience." Renewable power, unlike fossil fuel power plants, does not rely on fuel and is thus unaffected by fuel-supply and transportation issues. In times of drought, wind and solar have the additional advantage of not being water-intensive. Storage and distributed generation can be sited near customers and therefore have fewer points of vulnerabilities between them, such as broken power lines.

DOE, in its proposal, conflated reliability and resilience so badly, that in one telling example, the proposal brings up the generator outages during the 2014 Polar Vortex as a justification to quickly adopt the proposal before the coming winter heating season. We've heard this rhetoric before in the calls for expensive rule changes in 2014, but now with "resilience" instead of "reliability." We hope that FERC, which is charged with ensuring reasonable rates for consumers, will not allow the DOE proposal to bamboozle consumers into paying for reliability twice, just this time under a different name.

In fact, the 2014 calls for reform produced a fuel-neutral mechanism that rewards overperforming generators during disruptive events with higher prices and penalizes the underperformers. These higher payments could go to renewable or demand-side resources like energy efficiency—or fuel-based resources that can guarantee performance regardless of how they do it. It could be stockpiling onsite fuel, for that matter, if that happens to be a cost-effective way to ensure electricity is delivered in times of grid stress. (Note, however, that we do not endorse the new requirements included as part of those reforms that discriminate against resources that do not burn fuel).

A true understanding of resilience, and how best to address it, will take effort and coordination. But experts are already studying the issue. And FERC could coordinate with state and regional authorities to comprehensively investigate resilience, figure out how to measure various aspects of resilience, prioritize issues and potential solutions, and to do so on a reasonable timeline.

Market forces are indeed shifting power generation away from coal and nuclear plants. But retiring these risky, polluting and uneconomical power sources is not creating a crisis, but an opportunity. There's no doubt that our grid is changing and our climate is changing—and there are better ways to address both sensibly. The grid of the future should be cleaner, more flexible, more reliable and more affordable. Addressing any issues of resilience should also move the grid forward, not back to the past.

Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Climate
Women fetching water in India. Pixabay

India Suffers 'Worst Water Crisis in Its History'

India is facing its "worst-ever" water crisis, according to a report from a government think tank issued last week.

Around 200,000 Indians die each year due to lack of water access, the report finds, and demand will be twice as much as supply by 2030.

Keep reading... Show less
Food
daryl_mitchell / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0

Urban Gardening 101: How to Deal With Contaminated Soil

By Brian Barth

Urban soils are particularly prone to contamination. Fifty years ago, your yard could have belonged to a farmer, who, perhaps not knowing any better, disposed of old bottles of anti-freeze or contaminated diesel in a hole out behind the tractor garage. Or perhaps the remains of a fallen down outbuilding, long ago coated in lead-based paint, was buried on your property buy a lazy contractor when your subdivision was built.

Keep reading... Show less
Climate
High-tide flooding in Miami, FL, a state that could lose more than 10 percent of its residential properties to chronic flooding by 2100. B137 / CC BY-SA 4.0

Sea Level Rise Could Put 2.4 MIllion U.S. Coastal Homes at Risk

More than 300,000 U.S. coastal homes could be uninhabitable due to sea level rise by 2045 if no meaningful action is taken to combat climate change, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study published Monday found.

The study, Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods and the Implications for U.S. Coastal Real Estate, set out to calculate how many coastal properties in the lower 48 states would suffer from "chronic inundation," non-storm flooding that occurs 26 times a year or more, under different climate change scenarios.

Keep reading... Show less
Climate

NASA Climate Scientist Warned Us About Warming 30 Years Ago

Climate science marks a troubling anniversary this week: in June of 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming had already begun to affect the world and would only get worse.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Climate
Pixabay

4 Ways You Can Make a Difference on Climate

By Jaime Nack

"Where do I start?"

Whatever the forum, whatever the audience, it's always the first question I hear when I talk to people about sustainability and personal impact.

Keep reading... Show less
Renewable Energy
Minnesota Senate Building solar array ribbon-cutting ceremony on May 10. MN Administration / CC BY 2.0

U.S. Sees Steady Solar Growth Despite Trump, But China Slashes Subsidies

By Andy Rowell

Donald Trump can't stop the sun from shining. Despite the climate denier's pro-fossil fuel agenda, and despite his tariffs on imported solar panels, the U.S. still installed more solar than any other source of energy in the first quarter of the year.

The amount of solar power installed in the U.S. climbed 13 percent in the first quarter, according to the trade body, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Politics
frankieleon / CC BY 2.0

How a Minor Change to EPA Rules Could Slash Environmental Protection

By Joseph Aldy

Since the Reagan administration, federal agencies have been required to produce cost-benefit analyses of their major regulations. These assessments are designed to ensure that regulators are pursuing actions that make society better off.

In my experience working on the White House economic team in the Clinton and Obama administrations, I found cost-benefit analysis provides a solid foundation for understanding the impacts of regulatory proposals. It also generates thoughtful discussion of ways to design rules to maximize net benefits to the public.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
E. Kahl / National Park Service

America’s Most Obscure Desert Is in Alaska

By Michael Engelhard

Time slipping, a tabula rasa. Footprints erased, slopes advanced, ripples unsculpted. A whole world recast by whims of weather. Besides snowfields and foreshores, few landscapes appear so clean-cut and subtle. Here, emptiness is the main attraction.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!