DV Journal

Energy sector officials have been warning for years about the risks posed to New England’s grid by plunging temperatures, risks exacerbated by anti-energy-infrastructure policies across the region.

Now with New England facing its coldest temperatures since the “polar vortex” of 2019 and wind chills of -45 degrees below zero across the U.S. northern tier states, the grid is under stress once again.

“Well-documented natural gas pipeline constraints, coupled with global supply chain issues related to deliveries of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), are placing New England’s power system at heightened risk heading into the winter season,” ISO New England Inc, operator of the region’s power grid said in a December 6 statement.

In that same statement, Peter Brandien, vice president of System Operations & Market Administration, warned “if the region experiences an extended period of extreme cold weather, fuel supplies into the region could become constrained resulting in challenging system operation.”

As ISO=NE continues its work with the New England states and industry stakeholders to transition to what it considers a cleaner grid, the organization said it must also maintain real-time power system reliability.

“In recent years, oil and LNG have filled the gaps when extended periods of very cold weather have constrained natural gas pipeline supplies,” according to ISO New England’s president and CEO Gordon van Welie. “Higher prices globally for these fuels, as well as pandemic-related supply chain challenges, could limit their availability in New England if needed to produce electricity this winter.

“The region would be in a precarious position if an extended cold snap were to develop and these fuels were not available,” van Welie said.

Dan Kish of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Energy Research (IER) says these warnings were not sexy at the time, but people are paying attention now.

“What they pointed to was a growing gap between demand for energy and the supply that people are making available either through pipelines or electrical lines or anything else and because New England is an area of the country that does not have a lot of energy production,” says Kish. “I would be concerned based upon what the people who oversee the grid have said about it.”

“Part of the problem with the grid is the problems created by people that say we need to fix the grid,” says Kish. “The more diversity one has, the more options people have to use whatever fits those needs, and when you begin closing those down, that puts excessive strain on the grid, and that’s why the grid is running into trouble.”

Which is why New Hampshire maintains the 459 MW Merrimack Station in Bow, the last coal-burning power plant in New England. While it is seldom powered up, its owners, Granite Shore Power, make millions in capacity payments by acting as a reliable electricity backup for the grid.

“Coal-fired plants no longer supply baseload power,” says the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “but they play an important role in providing electricity on high demand days.”

Green activists have been trying unsuccessfully to shut down the Bow plant for years. Four protesters with the left-wing organization “No Coal, No Gas” were arrested Saturday after two chained themselves to a smokestack at the Bow plant.

None of the four arrested are residents of New Hampshire, according to police reports.

So, what power source should New England use during high-demand periods if they succeeded in getting Bow shut down?

“I recognize that the transition does not happen in one day, and the workers at the coal plant deserve options in the transition away from fossil fuels,” Rebecca Beaulieu, Communications & Youth Programs Organizer at 350 New Hampshire.

Beaulieu argues that coal provides just 3 percent or so of New England’s power, even during a peak in usage, and that three percent can be made up by renewables. “We would love to see the coal plant replaced with solar or wind energy – something that would benefit the residents of Bow and end the pollution of their air and water.”

And she’s right: On. Tuesday, ISO-NE reported just 2.55 percent of power on the grid came from coal. However, that’s about the same as wind (2.9 percent) and 100 times more than solar (o.o2 percent.) Wind and solar output would have to double to replace coal — and that’s assuming there’s not another 2019.

“Wind and solar operate pretty poorly when it’s cold or snowing,” says Kish.

Meanwhile, the use of oil surges during cold periods like this one. According to the dashboard, New England was getting 17 percent of its energy from oil on Tuesday, more than hydro/wind/solar combined.

One of the stated goals of the “No Coal, No Gas” movement is to prevent the Bow plant from being converted to natural gas – despite the fact it emits about half as much carbon as coal.

“Europe right now has been going through a situation where they’re closing industries because you simply can’t make fertilizers or metal, or steel because the cost of energy has gone through the roof because they’re a few years ahead of us in this so-called green transition,” Kish said.

“So, make no mistake about it: The grid itself is actually put in peril by many of the things that they’re preaching that we ought to adopt.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Last month, seven environmental groups wrote a misguided letter to Philadelphia officials bashing legislation that I sponsored as counterintuitive to the city’s decarbonization goals.

In October, six Democrats, including two from the southeast corner of the state, joined all 28 Republicans and our chamber’s lone independent to approve Senate Bill 275. That’s a veto-proof majority, for those counting.

Why? Because the bill’s purpose is simple. It prevents Pennsylvania’s 2,500-plus municipalities from banning access to certain utilities, like natural gas or heating oil. That will preserve consumer access to affordable electricity, no matter where they live, and prevent a chaotic patchwork of regulations that ultimately undermine statewide environmental and energy policies.

It also reaffirms what many local and statewide officials, including the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, already understand to be true: municipalities do not have the authority to restrict energy sources.

What the bill does not do is prevent the Philadelphia City Council from pursuing its goal to retrofit all publicly owned buildings to reduce emissions 50 percent over the next decade. It’s not just about ripping out gas lines and oil tanks and installing heat pumps instead. Reducing electricity usage – through upgraded windows, roofs, and insulation – is also a crucial piece of the puzzle.

The aforementioned environmental groups said SB 275 will eliminate any hope of Philadelphia reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. Which begs the question, if the only way to achieve decarbonization is by indiscriminatingly banning utilities deemed “dirty” and “bad,” is that even a good plan? Isn’t there an old adage forewarning the danger of putting all your eggs in one basket?

Banning specific fuel sources in pursuit of “clean energy” makes zero sense in Philadelphia and beyond. First, clean energy is a misnomer. There’s simply no such thing. Even if we shuttered every coal and gas plant across the world tomorrow and began a frantic campaign to install wind and solar farms in their place, we’d need to cover about 1.8 million square kilometers of land and coastline to replace the lost capacity.

And we would need fossil fuels to produce all of those solar panels and wind turbines. Just like we need oil and gas to create and distribute nearly every product we use every single day, from the medications we take to the clothes we wear to the packaging we use to preserve our food. To assume that banning fossil fuels will only impact emissions and electricity prices is to ignore the intricate web that is our economy.

Besides, the city doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s connected to a vast, 13-state power grid called PJM, that manages the safe and reliable flow of electricity for 65 million people from Chicago to Washington D.C. and many places in between.

PJM’s operators ensure that its network of transmission lines and generation facilities work in tandem every minute of the day, preventing system overloads that could trigger massive utility failures and inflict untold suffering on millions in its territory. So, if electricity demand spikes in Philadelphia, but environmental policies have forced fossil-fuel plants into nonexistence, there are fewer reliable energy sources to shoulder the burden.

A similar story unfolded in Texas in February when an unprecedented winter storm froze generators and rendered solar and wind farms useless, leaving as many as 4 million Texans without power or water. More than 200 people died amid the chaos. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid operator, promised to winterize its system to harden it against future storms, but the damage was done. The rest of the nation should take note: a diversified and robust grid is key to preventing systemwide catastrophes.

Which brings me back to the idea of banning access to fossil fuels. If we are willing to sacrifice our food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, doing so might eliminate some carbon emissions in the United States. Globally, U.S. emissions equal about half of what China produces on an annual basis, according to 2018 figures. The annual combined emissions from the other three top polluting nations – India, Russia, and Japan – would likewise take our place.

Then there are the emissions from sources we can’t always control: Volcanic eruptions, livestock, forest fires. Or the damage caused by human activity like deforestation and degenerative agriculture. Even if the United States found a solution to every single unsustainable practice that critics say contributes to climate change, the rest of the world’s leading nations aren’t following suit.

So, what do these groups really want from the city? They want officials to take a sledgehammer to our carefully planned and managed power grid, collapse our economy, and leave Pennsylvanians with higher electric bills, fewer jobs, and unreliable utilities. All for the sake of reducing carbon emissions that will be offset by the rest of the world in perpetuity.

Protecting energy choices for consumers means that residents can pursue “cleaner” electricity sources if they want to or can afford to, while not punishing those who don’t have the option. SB 275 isn’t about protecting special interests – what does a senator from Williamsport owe to Philadelphia’s gas utility?

What I do care about is promoting a sound energy policy that doesn’t leave others behind for the constant pursuit of ideological purity, no matter how impractical or impossible or harmful it is for the very people such policies purport to help.

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal