Renewable Energy Industry Anxiously Watching Rick Perry

An Energy Department study of the grid is seen as a backdoor attack on clean energy.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry testifies before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday.
Chet Susslin
Jason Plautz
Add to Briefcase
Jason Plautz
June 20, 2017, 8 p.m.

What sounds like a bur­eau­crat­ic, stand­ard re­view of the elec­tric grid has taken on a polit­ic­al life of its own as part of the con­tro­versy over wheth­er the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion will cut gov­ern­ment sup­port for re­new­able en­ergy.

En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Rick Perry has ordered his de­part­ment to study the “long-term re­li­ab­il­ity of the elec­tric grid,” fo­cus­ing on wheth­er fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions and sub­sidies for re­new­ables have af­fected base­load power.

Ap­pear­ing be­fore a House pan­el Tues­day, Perry said the re­view would be out by the end of the month and had taken on par­tic­u­lar im­port­ance amid skyrock­et­ing tem­per­at­ures in the West. The high in Phoenix hit 119 de­grees Tues­day af­ter­noon—so hot that some com­mer­cial air­planes were groun­ded.

“We may get a test this sum­mer from the stand­point of our re­li­ab­il­ity. I hope that’s not the case; I hope we don’t see brown­outs,” Perry said at a House Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee hear­ing. The de­part­ment, he said, was “look­ing at how we make Amer­ica’s en­ergy re­li­able, af­ford­able, and sus­tain­able. We know that re­quires a base­load cap­ab­il­ity that can run 24-7.”

The study is meant to fo­cus on base­load plants, or the coal, gas, and nuc­le­ar fa­cil­it­ies that provide around-the-clock power. The study, Perry said, would also fo­cus on cy­ber­se­cur­ity, en­sur­ing that the grid was safe from hacks like the one seen in Ukraine in 2015.

And while Perry said it would in­cor­por­ate a re­view of the role of re­new­ables and oth­er emer­ging tech­no­lo­gies, the study has been cri­ti­cized as a back­door way for the En­ergy De­part­ment to jus­ti­fy rolling back its sup­port for re­new­able en­ergy. The very premise of the study—wheth­er new en­ergy sources such as wind and sol­ar are harm­ing the abil­ity of the grid to sup­ply ne­ces­sary power—es­sen­tially as­sumes that non-coal sources are un­re­li­able.

A memo an­noun­cing the grid study by Perry even noted “reg­u­lat­ory bur­dens in­tro­duced by the pre­vi­ous ad­min­is­tra­tion” that had “des­troyed jobs and eco­nom­ic growth, and … threaten to un­der­cut the per­form­ance of the grid well in­to the fu­ture.”

Perry ad­ded that the re­view should ex­plore “the ex­tent to which con­tin­ued reg­u­lat­ory bur­dens, as well as man­dates and tax and sub­sidy policies, are re­spons­ible for for­cing the pre­ma­ture re­tire­ment of base­load power plants.”

Re­new­able back­ers are push­ing back ahead of the En­ergy De­part­ment’s re­lease; the busi­ness groups Ad­vanced En­ergy Eco­nomy and the Amer­ic­an Wind En­ergy As­so­ci­ation re­leased a study Tues­day that they said would un­der­cut Perry’s as­sump­tions. The re­port, au­thored by Ana­lys­is Group, found “no evid­ence” that in­tro­du­cing re­new­ables to the en­ergy mix threatened re­li­ab­il­ity, in­stead fo­cus­ing on the role of nat­ur­al gas in chal­len­ging coal power.

The re­port also said that ad­vanced en­ergy of­fers re­li­ab­il­ity be­ne­fits by mak­ing the en­ergy grid more di­verse, and has made the idea of “base­load power” out­dated be­cause the growth in re­new­able and nat­ur­al-gas plants makes it easi­er to ramp up and meet high­er de­mand as needed.

“The elec­tri­city sys­tem in the United States is stronger than it’s ever been. Thanks to in­nov­a­tion and smart policy, we have a more di­verse fuel mix, a more re­li­able grid, and lower elec­tri­city costs,” said AEE CEO Gra­ham Richard. “As DOE fi­nal­izes its re­port on re­li­ab­il­ity, we hope the de­part­ment will in­cor­por­ate these key find­ings, which re­flect the true state of the grid.”

That’s not to say that the grid study is be­ing dis­missed; even Demo­crat Nita Lowey, the rank­ing mem­ber of the Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee, said it was im­port­ant to up­grade both the re­li­ab­il­ity and se­cur­ity of the grid, call­ing it “ar­gu­ably most com­plex and crit­ic­al in­fra­struc­ture in our na­tion.”

But it comes as the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion has in­creas­ingly tried to prop up the ail­ing coal in­dustry, rolling back fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions and threat­en­ing to cut clean-en­ergy re­search.

The En­ergy De­part­ment’s pro­posed fisc­al 2018 budget would cut 70 per­cent from the Of­fice of En­ergy Ef­fi­ciency and Re­new­able En­ergy, elim­in­ate the Ad­vanced Re­search Pro­jects Agency-En­ergy pro­gram for ad­vanced en­ergy and make oth­er re­search cuts fo­cused on re­new­ables.

But any po­ten­tial chal­lenge to re­new­ables may be an up­hill battle in Con­gress. Sub­com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Marcy Kaptur said the cuts to the re­search labs that sup­port re­new­able en­ergy were a “big worry.” At Tues­day’s budget hear­ing, mem­bers seemed to give Perry a pass, call­ing the pro­pos­al “Mul­vaney’s budget” (in ref­er­ence to Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget Dir­ect­or Mick Mul­vaney), echo­ing the com­mon stance among ap­pro­pri­at­ors this year that the White House budget is dead on ar­rival.

Even Re­pub­lic­ans have backed re­new­able en­ergy; rur­al states like Iowa have ramped up their wind ca­pa­city (and while Perry was gov­ernor, Texas be­came the na­tion’s largest wind-power state). Sen. Chuck Grass­ley of Iowa may have even sent Perry the greatest warn­ing about his grid study; in a let­ter last month, Grass­ley warned that a “hast­ily de­veloped study, which ap­pears to pre-de­term­ine that vari­able, re­new­able sources such as wind have un­der­mined grid re­li­ab­il­ity, will not be viewed as cred­ible, rel­ev­ant or worthy of valu­able tax­pay­er re­sources.”

What We're Following See More »
INFORMS CONGRESS RE: EXECUTIVE ORDER
Trump Makes Good on Promise of New North Korea Sanctions
31 minutes ago
THE LATEST

President Trump this afternoon announced another round of sanctions on North Korea, calling the regime "a continuing threat." The executive order, which Trump relayed to Congress, bans any ship or plane that has visited North Korea from visiting the United States within 180 days. The order also authorizes sanctions on any financial institution doing business with North Korea, and permits the secretaries of State and the Treasury to sanction any person involved in trading with North Korea, operating a port there, or involved in a variety of industries there.

SUED FOR SIMILAR DESIGN
Ivanka to Court Over $785 Sandals
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DOESN’T KNOW WHEN
Trump Says He’ll Visit Puerto Rico
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Seated next to Ukrainian President Poroshenko on his final day of meetings at the United Nations, Trump did not say when he might go to Puerto Rico, but spoke solemnly about the destruction to an island he said had been 'absolutely obliterated.'”

Source:
SOUTH KOREA WILL SEND AID
Trump Promises More Sanctions on North Korea
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

In response to a reporter's question, President Trump said "he’ll be looking to impose further financial penalties on North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic tests. ... The U.N. has passed two resolutions recently aimed at squeezing the North Korean economy by cutting off oil, labor and exports to the nation." Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that South Korea's unification ministry is sending an $8m aid package aimed at infants and pregnant women in North Korea. The "humanitarian gesture [is] at odds with calls by Japan and the US for unwavering economic and diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang."

Source:
“PLUNDERED FLORIDA’S ORANGE BELT”
Irma Bad for Orange Juice Business
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

Hurricane Irma "could even be the knockout blow for a product — orange juice — that has been slipping in popularity among Americans, although the beverage still ranks as the country's favorite 'fruit'...Ninety percent of the state’s $1 billion annual harvest is eventually processed into OJ." Per the executive director of the state citrus grower's association, "It’s somewhere between significant and catastrophic."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login