Skip to main content

Sen. Lisa Murkowski: “A wake-up call to the continued importance of baseload capacity.”

There’s absolutely no reason for a senator from Alaska to be so knowledgeable about nuclear energy, yet Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is and has been one of its staunchest advocates. This is doubtless because she is the ranking member of the Environment and Natural Resources committee. Congressmen can be notoriously poor at learning the relevant issues of their committees, but Murkowski isn’t one of them – she really knows her energy beans and, as a bonus, has been one of the least ideologically driven members of the committee. She has worked comfortably with (the very liberal) Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on legislation that avoids partisan potholes and aims to fix problems in the energy realm. 

So we were very interested to see what Murkowski had to offer at the winter NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) meeting here in DC.

She used the occasion to release an unusually on-point report called “Powering the Future: Ensuring that Federal Policy Fully Supports Electric Reliability.” Why on-point? The stability of the grid, sorely tested recently by the polar vortex, has been percolating as a subject for awhile now. One reason for this is the growing understanding that shutting nuclear plants underscores their value as grid stabilizers - they produce plentiful electricity on close to a 24/7 basis. Replacing a nuclear plant is not an insolvable problem, but it does raise significant issues, one of which is ensuring enough baseload electricity to withstand significant demand, as occurred during the vortex.

This is what Murkowski says about the grid:

In stark contrast to far too many around the globe suffering in energy poverty with limited or no access to electricity, for most Americans the light turns on when they flip the switch. Keeping
the lights on, however, is a highly complex undertaking, requiring extensive planning and coordination. The lack of few efficient and commercially viable large-scale electricity storage mechanisms becomes more important as the energy resource mix changes and requires an electric grid that is both flexible and resilient. This is especially true when baseload generation is taken offline and grid fundamentals change.

Baseload energy includes coal, hydro, natural gas and nuclear energy. Hydro and nuclear energy do not produce carbon emissions. No renewable energy source aside from hydro can claim this. Nuclear energy is sometimes described as sustainable rather than renewable because its fuel, uranium, is not infinite, but can sustain electricity production for the foreseeable future (and uranium is, of course, not the only fissionable element).

The polar vortex makes an appearance in the report – Murkowski also cites superstorm Sandy and the derecho (all these new weather terms to learn!):

The Bulk Power System (BPS) has already been challenged in 2014. The deep freeze brought on by January’s polar vortex resulted in at least 50,000 megawatts of power plant outages. The electric industry has an impressive history of learning and improving from these system challenges. Among other things, what we learned from the Polar Vortex is that for one key system 89 percent of the coal capacity that is slated for retirement next year was called upon to meet demand. We also learned that nuclear power plants operated at over 90 percent capacity through the event, demonstrating their consistency, resiliency, and reliability. This should serve as a wake-up call to the continued importance of baseload capacity.

Oh, there we are – and there’s the call: not to nuclear energy per se but to baseload energy. That’s important – it’s key to Murkowski’s argument.

Murkowski is not proposing legislative action in this report, instead she is refocusing the energy discussion on the grid and government actions that can apply significant stress to it. Much of this has to do with regulation, particularly those issued by the EPA. While this is a persistent Republican issue, Murkowski tilts the argument away from regulation as a job killer to too much regulation as a grid stressor:

The concern is not just one single rule, but rather it is the accretion of rules and the process by which they are unrelentingly proposed and implemented, as if in a vacuum. Multiple EPA rules will impact the utility industry; particularly, the following suite of regulations continues to draw the most attention.

I won’t list the “suite,” but here’s one that pertains to nuclear energy:

Cooling Water Intake 316(b) – Stringent fish mortality and water intake velocity standards, without regard to site-specific factors, may make the standards unachievable.

Actually, this impacts any thermal plant, including gas and coal plants; most of Murkowski’s list zeros in on coal regulation in particular:

Coal Ash – Regulation of the storage and containment of coal ash, a byproduct from power plants, which could further drive up compliance costs at new and existing plants.

I don’t agree with slackening on this issue at all, as unleashed coal ash can be fantastically destructive. Here’s a story from CNN:

The coal ash poured out of a broken pipe into the Dan River, turning water into dark muck.

It took nearly a week to stem the spill, which sent millions of gallons of sludge from a retired power plant into a river that supplies drinking water to communities in North Carolina and neighboring Virginia.

Workers stopped the spill by plugging the broken pipe with concrete this weekend. Now government scientists and the United States' largest electric utility face a daunting task: cleaning it up.

But that’s okay. Murkowski is making a point, not issuing a directive. All her examples are arguable to someone. The point is, she’s raising in importance the issue of the cumulative impact of regulation. That is important and should be addressed – energy companies have really swayed a bit from regulatory overload, and the nuclear industry in particular has had to implement what seems to be an endless bout of post-Fukushima rulemaking. It’s not that the rulemaking is terrible – just that its piles up to the extent that it’s impossible to untangle the essential from the inessential from the optional. And that lack of discrimination, as facilities scramble to meet deadlines, can defer what is most useful and safety-enhancing. Murkowski has performed a valuable service by opening up this topic to a wider audience.

You can read her presentation here.


Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…