Skip to main content

Energy Markets Are Blind to Critical Factors in the Electric Grid

Using the short-term energy markets to make long-term decisions about the electric grid will irreversibly damage the system’s diversity and resiliency, the nuclear industry told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday, as the Commission prepared to take up a request by the Secretary of Energy to reform the rules for regional electricity pricing.

The markets are well set up to minimize short-term electricity costs, but they are blind to “critical non-price factors, such as resiliency, fuel diversity and environmental performance,” the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry’s trade association, said in comments filed Monday with the Commission, known as FERC.

Using the short-term energy markets to make long-term decisions about the electric grid will irreversibly damage the system’s diversity and resiliency, the nuclear industry told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday.

FERC sets the ground rules for the competitive energy markets that are now in place over more than half the country. But those rules have turned crucial decisions over to a very narrow set of considerations, as if the system operated in a “price-only vacuum,” NEI said in its comments.

The markets set prices that reflect the value of the electricity generated, and most of them also pay for being available to generate when needed, called “capacity.” They do not take account of diversity or how the system hedges its bets by relying on more than one or two technologies, and they do not consider the nuclear plants’ contribution to the resilience of the grid, the NEI comments stressed.

Driven largely by an abundance of natural gas, wholesale electricity prices have declined precipitously in the last several years, but energy sales are the source of most of the revenue for 43 reactors in market areas. It is lower revenues, not higher costs, that threaten the continued operation of the nuclear reactors.

The price of fossil fuels varies over time, and the supply is vulnerable to physical disruptions, market conditions and man-made problems. Natural gas is subject to sudden price increases and scarcity, NEI said in its comments.

In contrast to that just-in-time fuel delivery system, nuclear plants typically refuel once every 18 to 24 months and need only a few truckloads of fuel to run for that period. The price of fuel is a relatively small segment of their production cost, about 20 percent, so consumers are insulated from fuel price variations. Reactors take years to build, and keeping them ready to run costs money; hence when an owner decides to retire a plant, the company takes irrevocable steps quickly. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t even have a rule for how to re-activate an operating license.

More than 11,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity has been retired in recent years or is scheduled to be shut prematurely. Since those plants run more hours of the year than any other – 92 percent last year – this represents an enormous amount of energy. The same capacity in wind or solar generation would produce one-third to one-sixth as much actual electricity.

On September 28, Energy Secretary Rick Perry proposed that electricity generators with 90 days of fuel stored on site should be compensated for their costs. He asked FERC to rule within 60 days, which reflects the urgency of the problem but is unusually prompt for the commission. Secretary Perry’s proposal opens the door for consideration of a variety of reforms. NEI favors the cost-based system proposed by Mr. Perry, until some broader solution can be worked out.

Allowing short-term energy price considerations to dictate long-term policy runs counter to the federal government efforts that have made resiliency a key component of its national security strategy for more than 20 years.

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