Skip to main content

Energy Markets and City Councils

Brent Ridge, Energy Northwest’s Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, contributes an editorial to the webzine Clearing Up, which covers energy issues in the northwest. He notes that Columbia Generating Station has been operating without incident for almost 30 years. He also focuses on initiatives taken to improve costs to ratepayers and Columbia’s impressive worker safety record:

As Clearing Up noted last week, cooperation between EN, the Bonneville Power Administration and the Northwest power community on a regional debt management strategy will result in as much as $1.8 billion in savings for ratepayers.

and:

Energy Northwest employees and contractors are now exceeding 12 million hours worked without a lost-time injury.

Columbia has lately attracted some scrutiny from anti-nuclear energy activists, which actually strikes me as odd. Washington state is a very environmentally aware place and, whatever nuclear energy’s contribution to keeping the state’s clean air profile high, that doesn’t really matter to activists. That leads to this:

During the last two years they have devised arguments ranging from false Fukushima similarities to creatively calculated economic claims that lead to the same self-serving conclusion: Columbia should be immediately shut down.

And that led to the Seattle city council:

The committee meeting included half a dozen anti-nuclear activists repeating false claims, half-truths and doomsday scenarios designed to scare the general public into adopting their fear-based ideology about nuclear energy. It’s a clever tactic – disproving a hypothetical is difficult.

Most of Seattle’s electricity comes from hydro power – with nuclear energy’s relative minor contribution, it must be one of the cities least impacted by fossil fuel.

I don’t know the extent to which anti-nuclear tactics can work in Seattle, but it has gotten some well-considered pushback:

Arguments about eliminating nuclear generation from the Northwest, national or world energy mix make about as much sense as arguing that climate change isn’t real or happening. It’s an argument that is 40 years past its prime, if it ever had a prime to begin with.

Ridge pushes back further, tackling several activist arguments, including cod comparisons to Fukushima, seismic concerns, and, interestingly, Columbia’s value to the market place. It’s considerable:

The [Public Power] council specifically pointed to the Western Energy Crisis of 2000-2001. During that relatively short energy crisis, the cost benefit of Columbia’s power dwarfed “the modest benefits that would have been achieved” through replacement power. “In 2001 alone the operation of Columbia Generating Station compared to the market saved Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers $1.4 billion,” the council wrote.

Add to that the previously mentioned BPA/EN bond sale that will save Northwest ratepayers up to $1.8 billion in gross interest savings, and on those two data points alone, Columbia is saving Northwest ratepayers $3.2 billion.

That’s not chickenfeed. Most concerns about nuclear energy in the market place involve correctly valuing it as a non-carbon-emitting source of electricity. Just because it’s been doing that since the 50s doesn’t mean it has no value doing it now – closing a nuclear plant now almost always means increased emissions. This is exactly what the nation –or world – does not need. 

Ridge is taking this issue a different way around, noting that nuclear plants have a value as stable financial propositions:

In January, the Public Power Council, representing Northwest consumer-owned utilities, examined the Cambridge market assessment (commissioned by Energy Northwest) and the competing McCullough report (commissioned by Physicians for Social Responsibility). The Public Power Council observed that the variable cost of Columbia operations in recent years was slightly above spot market energy prices, for which the McCullough study recommended seeking a replacement power option.

However, the council also noted that a single unanticipated shift in the markets “can easily wipe out years of anticipated benefits” gained from replacement power, and concluded that the continued operation of Columbia “is economically advisable for the region.”

Which is true. Taking advantage of current market conditions ignores history and overall energy trends. It’s like bailing on Apple stock in 1997 because the company hit a trough. It’s essentially a trick, which looks good – and just barely - only in the moment and with no context.

It’s a terrific article, specific to Columbia but very broadly applicable. You can see the whole thing if you can subscribe to Clearing Up. In the meantime, if we can give it some wider distribution, good.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…