ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Focus on FERC: Keep energy markets free markets

| Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
AP Photo
AP Photo

Last month, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry proposed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) intervene in state electricity markets to establish new rules that would have electricity consumers subsidize uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants. The proposal is theoretically intended to promote “resiliency” of the electrical grid, but it is a thinly disguised effort to help politically connected interests at the expense of electricity ratepayers.

In its proposal, the Department of Energy (DOE) gives FERC only 60 days to decide whether to upend the nation's electricity markets. If FERC decides to enact the DOE proposal, it would undermine 25 years of progress in the development of competitive electricity markets that save consumers money.

As the federal government intervenes to pick winners and losers, it undermines the growth of two thriving industries that have been huge drivers for economic growth both in Pennsylvania and across America — renewable energy and natural gas.

The notion that we need this new government intervention to address concerns about resilience is undermined by DOE's own recent study of the nation's grid. The study failed to document any way that either coal or nuclear power could help. In fact, when the grid has been tested in extreme circumstances, the on-site coal and nuclear fuel that DOE now says is necessary has proven to be a vulnerability.

During the 2014 polar vortex, coal piles froze. During Hurricane Harvey, coal units near Houston went down due to flooding. Tsunami-force floods led to the shutdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and the release of dangerous radiation.

There is also no evidence that on-site fuel supply, as called for by DOE, will reduce electricity outages. A recent study by the Rhodium Group concluded that less than 0.00007 percent of power outages are related to fuel-supply issues.

DOE's proposal seeks to override state authority by imposing a guaranteed cost-recovery mechanism for existing, and potentially for new, coal and nuclear units. Every eligible unit would receive full cost recovery whether it is needed by the system operator or wanted by customers.

That means electricity consumers would be saddled with billions of dollars in unnecessary charges.

Fortune 500 companies and small businesses are choosing the kind of electricity they want to meet requirements for energy, lower costs, critical functions and sustainability. If finalized, this rule would force businesses to pay more for power they don't want.

The decision will ultimately rest with FERC, which has a majority of Trump-administration appointees, none of whom in the past have supported this sort of interference in state and regional electricity markets.

A broad coalition is standing together in support of a competitive electricity marketplace, including such diverse groups as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Council on Renewable Energy. It is our hope that the bipartisan collection of commissioners at FERC will rule against this heavy-handed distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new bureaucratic initiatives that increase prices.

James Spencer is president and CEO of EverPower, a Pittsburgh-based developer, owner and operator of utility-scale U.S. wind projects. Greg Wetstone is president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, a national nonprofit dedicated to advancing renewable energy through finance, policy and market development.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me