Skip to main content

Think You’ve Got Game? Try NARUC’s Energy Risk Lab

The following guest post was written by Mary Pietrzyk, NEI’s  Manager, Fuel Cycle Policies and Programs.

I had the opportunity recently to participate in a thought provoking and action packed event in Washington, DC—NARUC’s Energy Risk LabNARUC, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, is the national association representing public utility commissioners from each state.  NARUC is a valuable resource for Commissioners around the country and provides fora for dialogue among diverse entities in the public utility industry.

NARUC’s Energy Risk Lab, generously supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, is a scenario-planning game that looks at decisions and uncertainty facing the U.S. electricity generation sector.  NARUC staff, using natural disaster related emergency tabletop exercises as a foundation, developed this game, along with others, to explore the impacts of new policy, market, or technology developments on electricity generation. 

The basis of this lab is that each team is given a portfolio of generation. Teams start with coal, and then other technologies are added as the game progresses.  NARUC’s Miles Keogh walked our group through various rounds of complying with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rules.  After getting a brief overview of each rule, teams had to retrofit, repower or replace generation to comply with:

·         the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule in round 1;
·         the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in round 3; and
·         the New Source Performance Standards Rule for existing plants in round 5. 

While some of these rules are not finalized, assumptions were made as to what would be deemed compliant.  Teams worked to make generation decisions, manage uncertainties as the game progressed, and eventually worked between teams to buy and sell generation and allowances.

In addition to gaining valuable knowledge about EPA rules, the game explored the psychology of decision-making under situations of uncertainty and incomplete information (sounds like the real world doesn’t it?)  For example, all teams had a proclivity to make small incremental changes instead of making dramatic changes to their generation portfolios due to uncertainty looming in subsequent rounds.  

It was also difficult to balance the various drivers of change—complying with the rules in a timely manner while maintaining reliability, developing new clean energy generation while managing costs, and the list continues.  Compounding the challenges, my team was representative of a diverse set of interests (industry, environmental organizations, regulatory organizations, etc), so options had to be carefully presented and defended.   

This game definitely conveyed the enormous pressures on our electricity system—but more importantly the enormous pressure on our utilities, regulators and legislators who have to make these generation planning decisions.

Kudos to the NARUC team and the Department of Energy for the great event!  A special thanks to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for hosting the group in its DC conference center.
  

Anyone seeking more information regarding the Energy Risk Lab should contact Miles Keough, Director of Grants and Research, at mkeough-at-naruc.org.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin