America’s Power Grid at the Limit: The Road to Electrical Blackouts

[Ryan Ruck]

America’s Power Grid at the Limit: The Road to Electrical Blackouts

April 23, 2014

Originally published in Communities Digital News.

Americans take electricity for granted. Electricity powers our lights, our computers, our offices, and our industries. But misguided environmental policies are eroding the reliability of our power system.

Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the US electrical system―and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts.

Eight of the top ten of PJM’s all-time winter peaks occurred in January 2014. Heroic efforts by grid operators saved large parts of the nation’s heartland from blackouts during record-cold temperature days. Nicholas Akins, CEO of American Electric Power, stated in Congressional testimony, “This country did not just dodge a bullet―we dodged a cannon ball.”

Environmental policies established by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are moving us toward electrical grid failure. The capacity reserve margin for hot or cold weather events is shrinking in many regions. According to Philip Moeller, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “…the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”

EPA policies, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of US electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one-quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months. Eighty-nine percent of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans.

In addition to shrinking reserve margin, electricity prices are becoming less stable. Natural gas-fired plants are replacing many of the closing coal-fired facilities. Gas powered 27 percent of US electricity in 2013, up from 18 percent a decade earlier. When natural gas is plentiful, its price is competitive with that of coal fuel.

But natural gas is not stored on plant sites like coal. When electrical and heating demand spiked in January, gas was in short supply. Gas prices soared by a factor of twenty, from $5 per million BTU to over $100 per million BTU. Consumers were subsequently shocked by utility bills several times higher than in previous winters.

On top of existing regulations, the EPA is pushing for carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants, as part of the “fight” against human-caused climate change. If enacted, these new regulations will force coal-fired plants to either close or add expensive carbon capture and storage technology. This EPA crusade against global warming continues even though last winter was the coldest US winter since 1911-1912.

Nuclear generating facilities are also under attack. Many of the 100 nuclear power plants that provided 20 percent of US electricity for decades can no longer be operated profitably. Exelon’s six nuclear power plants in Illinois have operated at a loss for the last six years and are now candidates for closure.

What industry pays customers to take its product? The answer is the US wind industry. Wind-generated electricity is typically bid in electrical wholesale markets at negative prices. But how can wind systems operate at negative prices?



The answer is that the vast majority of US wind systems receive a federal production tax credit (PTC) of up to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for produced electricity. Some states add an addition credit, such as Iowa, which provides a corporate tax credit of 1.5 cents per kw-hr. So wind operators can supply electricity at a pre-tax price of a negative 3 or 4 cents per kw-hr and still make an after-tax profit from subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer.

As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output.

But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again extend the destructive PTC subsidy.

Capacity shortages are beginning to appear. A reserve margin deficit of two gigawatts is projected for the summer of 2016 for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), serving the Northern Plains states. Reserve shortages are also projected for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) by as early as this summer.

The United States has the finest electricity system in the world, with prices one-half those of Europe. But this system is under attack from foolish energy policies. Coal-fired power plants are closing, unable to meet EPA environmental guidelines. Nuclear plants are aging and beset by mounting losses, driven by negative pricing from subsidized wind systems. Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

[Ryan Ruck]

Could have posted this in the Overbearing EPA thread but wanted to bump this one.

Obama Said to Propose Deep Cuts to Power-Plant Emissions

June 1, 2014

President Barack Obama will propose cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from the nation’s power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, according to people briefed on the plans.

The proposal, scheduled to be unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow morning, represents one of the boldest steps the U.S. has taken to fight global warming -- and a political gamble.

Obama signaled both the importance of the rule to his legacy on environmental protection and the bruising fight ahead by joining a conference call today with congressional Democrats, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House counselor John Podesta to rally support.

Obama dismissed complaints that the rule will hurt the economy by driving up electricity prices, and told the Democrats listening: “Please go on offense” to promote the plan’s benefits, said two people who were on the call, including Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat.

Connolly and another person on the call said the president suggested that rather than having an adverse effect on the economy -- as critics say -- his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion.

Efficiency Gains

McCarthy told the lawmakers that the rule will only lead to minimal cost increases for consumers in some areas and families could end up saving money due to efficiency gains, one participant on the call said. She also stressed that states will be able to design their own approaches to meet the targets, the source said.

The proposed regulation will permit states to achieve the reductions in climate-warming pollutants by promoting renewable energy, encouraging greater use of natural gas, embracing energy efficiency technologies or joining carbon trading markets.

The 30 percent reduction represents an average. Individual states may be directed to cut carbon emissions at levels that are greater or less than that overall figure.

‘The president’s plan would destroy jobs and raise costs for families across America, and Congress must listen to these families -- even though the president won’t,’’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in a statement in which he vowed to introduce legislation to block the emissions rules.

Obama Legacy

The proposal may be Obama’s last best chance at strengthening his position with environmentalists who were disappointed in his failure in his first term to create a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions.

It will also give him evidence of America leading by example as he tries to persuade other nations to cut back on their carbon emissions.

“President Obama is right to take decisive action to combat this clear and present danger,” Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said by e-mail. “The proposed standards will limit -- for the first time in U.S. history -- the unrestricted pollution of our atmosphere by carbon dioxide.”

The proposed rules are among policies “designed to drive out low-cost electricity and replace it with higher-cost, more expensive and less reliable electricity,” Hal Quinn, chief executive officer of the National Mining Association, said today on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Plant Efficiency

The EPA is counting on coal plants being operated more efficiently and states shifting to natural gas from coal to get modest cuts in the next four or five years, the people said. Each state will have a target based on its emissions, and in the next decade the overall electric grid will need to become more efficient and use renewable generation to achieve the reductions, they said.

Some industry observers have said the approach favored by the administration will leave the rule open to legal challenges under the Clean Air Act because it relies on an interpretation of the law that counts emissions reductions that occur outside power plants -- through such things as efficiency measures, greater use of renewable energy and even joining carbon-trading programs. Past regulations have sought to cut pollutants as measured at the smokestack.

Republicans have signaled they intend to make the rule an issue in the House and in campaigns in states where the coal industry is a major employer. Some Democrats have voiced opposition to a plan they worry will hurt them with voters.

The regulations being announced tomorrow will apply to existing power producers. Separate regulations governing new plants have already been proposed.

[American Patriot]

Well, that is a boomerang cannon ball and it's on its way back.

[American Patriot]

EPA unveils far-reaching climate plan targeting power plants

The Jeffrey Energy Center coal-fired power plant near St. Marys, Kan. (Charlie Riedel / Associated Press)

Obama administration releases far-reaching climate plan



Proposed new power plant rules released by the EPA could reshape nation's energy landscape



Obama administration launches battle on climate change with proposed new power plant rules

The Obama administration Monday morning unveiled its far-reaching proposal to curb climate change by substantially restricting emissions at power plants, a plan that promises to set off intense debate across the country amid the president’s boldest action yet to reshape the energy landscape.

Related story: New EPA rule would seek to cut carbon emissions 30% by 2030 Neela Banerjee

Under the proposal, the administration is seeking to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% from their 2005 level by the year 2030. The plan gives local officials wide leeway in how to go about meeting that goal but it represents a major challenge for many of the states that remain heavily dependent on coal; some are already girding to fight the president on the proposed new rules.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s rollout of the 645-page plan launches a yearlong period of comment and review. The 2005 baseline year chosen by the administration reflects a time when emissions of greenhouse gases were at a peak. They have been reduced by about 10% since then, largely because many power companies have shifted toward cleaner-burning natural gas amid its recent boom. Meeting the EPA goal would require a further 17% reduction nationwide.


“This goal is achievable because innovations in the production, distribution and use of electricity are already making the power sector more efficient and sustainable while maintaining an affordable, reliable and diverse energy mix,” the preamble to the EPA plan states.

Still, many lawmakers and major business groups warn such a mandate would cause irreparable damage to the economy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a staunch opponent of many initiatives to curb climate change, projects that the rule would cost the economy $50 billion annually, but the EPA concluded differently.


“The EPA projects that, in 2030, the significant reductions in the harmful carbon pollution and in other air pollution, to which this rule would lead, would result in net climate and health benefits of $48 billion to $82 billion,” the agency proposal says. “At the same time, coal and natural gas would remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S., with each providing more than 30 percent of the projected generation.”


Under the plan, states would be given a menu of options for meeting their specific targets, which will vary based on their current fuel mix. States that burn a lot of coal would begin their reductions from a higher emissions level than those that burn natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide.


One way a state might go about meeting the target is by building higher-tech plants that capture greenhouse gases and divert them from the atmosphere, a costly endeavor that opponents of the president’s plan say is financially untenable on the scale the EPA is seeking. They could also choose to run fossil-fuel-fired plants less often, shift more operations to renewable energy sources or impose energy-efficiency programs that reduce the amount of power used, and thus emissions.


“Each state will have the flexibility to take steps to design a program to meet its goal in a manner that reflects its particular circumstances and energy and environmental policy objectives,” the proposal says. “Each state can do so alone or can collaborate with other states on multi-state plans that may provide additional opportunities for cost savings and flexibility.”


Power plants account for about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Though there are multiple rules geared toward limiting the pollutants the plants release into the environment, according to the EPA, there are currently no federal caps on the carbon dioxide they emit.