Nuclear rods likely melted: TEPCO

PG&E Wind Shutdown and Renewable Reliability examines PSPS strategy, wildfire risk, transmission line exposure, wind turbine cut-out speeds, grid stability, and California's energy mix amid historic high-wind events and supply constraints across service areas.

Key Points

An overview of PG&E's PSPS decisions, wildfire mitigation, and how wind cut-out limits influence grid reliability.

✅ Wind turbines reach cut-out near 55 mph, reducing generation.

✅ PSPS mitigates ignition from damaged transmission infrastructure.

✅ Baseload diversity improves resilience during high-wind events.

According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) initiated power shutoffs across substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if it didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to its infrastructure could start more wildfires.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break, the grid can still function, and even as the electric rhythms of New York City shifted during COVID-19, operators planned for variability.

So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure isn’t the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when a “historic” weather event occurs, especially as policymakers weigh the postponed closure of three power plants elsewhere in California?

Wind Speed Limits

The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations, which is why some energy leaders urge us to keep electricity options open when planning the grid. With solar power, the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One doesn’t generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed, and even in markets undergoing 'transformative change' in wind generation, operators adhere to these technical limits. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 miles-per-hour wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 miles per hour for most modern wind turbines.

It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which, in turn, allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear, amid debates over whether to classify nuclear as renewable—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with clean power increasing and wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

CO2 Removal Technologies address climate change via negative emissions, including carbon capture, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, and mineralization, helping meet Paris Agreement targets while managing costs, land use, and infrastructure demands.

Key Points

Methods to extract or sequester atmospheric CO2, combining natural and engineered approaches to limit warming.

✅ Includes reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, mineralization

✅ Balances climate goals with costs, land, energy, and infrastructure

✅ Key to Paris Agreement targets under 1.5-2.0 °C warming

The world is, on average, 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was in 1850. If this trend continues, our planet will be 2 – 3 degrees hotter by the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The main reason for this temperature rise is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which cause the atmosphere to trap heat radiating from the Earth into space. Since 1850, the proportion of CO2 in the air has increased, with record greenhouse gas concentrations documented, from 0.029% to 0.041% (288 ppm to 414 ppm).

This is directly related to the burning of coal, oil and gas, which were created from forests, plankton and plants over millions of years. Back then, they stored CO2 and kept it out of the atmosphere, but as fossil fuels are burned, that CO2 is released. Other contributing factors include industrialized agriculture and slash-and-burn land clearing techniques, and emissions from SF6 in electrical equipment are also concerning today.

Over the past 50 years, more than 1200 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted into the planet's atmosphere — 36.6 billion tons in 2018 alone, though global emissions flatlined in 2019 before rising again. As a result, the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees in just half a century.

Atmospheric CO2 should remain at a minimum
In 2015, the world came together to sign the Paris Climate Agreement which set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees — 1.5 degrees, if possible.

The agreement limits the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere, providing a benchmark for the global energy transition now underway. According to the IPCC, if a maximum of around 300 billion tons were emitted, there would be a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. If CO2 emissions remain the same, however, the CO2 'budget' would be used up in just seven years.

According to the IPCC's report on the 1.5 degree target, negative emissions are also necessary to achieve the climate targets.

Using reforestation to remove CO2
One planned measure to stop too much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere is reforestation. According to studies, 3.6 billion tons of CO2 — around 10% of current CO2 emissions — could be saved every year during the growth phase. However, a study by researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, stresses that achieving this would require the use of land areas equivalent in size to the entire US.

Young trees at a reforestation project in Africa (picture-alliance/OKAPIA KG, Germany)
Reforestation has potential to tackle the climate crisis by capturing CO2. But it would require a large amount of space

More humus in the soil
Humus in the soil stores a lot of carbon. But this is being released through the industrialization of agriculture. The amount of humus in the soil can be increased by using catch crops and plants with deep roots as well as by working harvest remnants back into the ground and avoiding deep plowing. According to a study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) on using targeted CO2 extraction as a part of EU climate policy, between two and five billion tons of CO2 could be saved with a global build-up of humus reserves.

Biochar shows promise
Some scientists see biochar as a promising technology for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Biochar is created when organic material is heated and pressurized in a zero or very low-oxygen environment. In powdered form, the biochar is then spread on arable land where it acts as a fertilizer. This also increases the amount of carbon content in the soil. According to the same study from the SWP, global application of this technology could save between 0.5 and two billion tons of CO2 every year.

Storing CO2 in the ground
Storing CO2 deep in the Earth is already well-known and practiced on Norway's oil fields, for example. However, the process is still controversial, as storing CO2 underground can lead to earthquakes and leakage in the long-term. A different method is currently being practiced in Iceland, in which CO2 is sequestered into porous basalt rock to be mineralized into stone. Both methods still require more research, however, with new DOE funding supporting carbon capture, utilization, and storage.

Capturing CO2 to be held underground is done by using chemical processes which effectively extract the gas from the ambient air, and some researchers are exploring CO2-to-electricity concepts for utilization. This method is known as direct air capture (DAC) and is already practiced in other parts of Europe.  As there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be captured, it is considered to have great potential. However, the main disadvantage is the cost — currently around €550 ($650) per ton. Some scientists believe that mass production of DAC systems could bring prices down to €50 per ton by 2050. It is already considered a key technology for future climate protection.

The inside of a carbon capture facility in the Netherlands (RWE AG)
Carbon capture facilities are still very expensive and take up a huge amount of space

Another way of extracting CO2 from the air is via biomass. Plants grow and are burned in a power plant to produce electricity. CO2 is then extracted from the exhaust gas of the power plant and stored deep in the Earth, with new U.S. power plant rules poised to test such carbon capture approaches.

The big problem with this technology, known as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the huge amount of space required. According to Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in Berlin, it will therefore only play "a minor role" in CO2 removal technologies.

CO2 bound by rock minerals
In this process, carbonate and silicate rocks are mined, ground and scattered on agricultural land or on the surface water of the ocean, where they collect CO2 over a period of years. According to researchers, by the middle of this century it would be possible to capture two to four billion tons of CO2 every year using this technique. The main challenges are primarily the quantities of stone required, and building the necessary infrastructure. Concrete plans have not yet been researched.

Not an option: Fertilizing the sea with iron
The idea is use iron to fertilize the ocean, thereby increasing its nuturient content, which would allow plankton to grow stronger and capture more CO2. However, both the process and possible side effects are very controversial. "This is rarely treated as a serious option in research," concludes SWP study authors Oliver Geden and Felix Schenuit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electrical Grounding and Bonding NEC 250 Training equips electricians with Article 250 expertise, OSHA compliance knowledge, lightning protection strategies, and low-impedance fault current path design for safer industrial, commercial, and institutional power systems.

Key Points

Live NEC 250 course on grounding and bonding, covering safety, testing, and OSHA-compliant design.

✅ Interprets NEC Article 250 grounding and bonding rules

✅ Designs low-impedance fault current paths for safety

✅ Aligns with OSHA, lightning protection, and testing best practices

The Electricity Forum is organizing a series of live online Electrical Grounding and Bonding - NEC 250 training courses this Fall:

• September 8-9 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
• October 29-30 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
• November 23-24 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET

This interactive 12-hour live online instructor-led  Grounding and Bonding and the NEC Training course takes an in-depth look at Article 250 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) and is designed to give students the correct information they need to design, install and maintain effective electrical grounding and bonding systems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, with substation maintenance training also relevant in many facilities.

One of the most important AND least understood sections of the NEC is the section on Electrical Grounding, where resources like grounding guidelines can help practitioners navigate key concepts.

No other section of the National Electrical Code can match Article 250 (Grounding and Bonding) for confusion that leads to misapplication, violation, and misinterpretation. It's generally agreed that the terminology used in Section 250 has been a source for much confusion for industrial, commercial and institutional electricians. Thankfully, this has improved during the last few revisions to Article 250.

Article 250 covers the grounding requirements for providing a path to the earth to reduce overvoltage from lightning, with lightning protection training providing useful context, and the bonding requirements for a low-impedance fault current path back to the source of the electrical supply to facilitate the operation of overcurrent devices in the event of a ground fault.

Our Electrical Grounding Training course will address all the latest changes to  the Electrical Grounding rules included in the NEC, and relate them to VFD drive training considerations for modern systems.

Our course will cover grounding fundamentals, identify which grounding system tests can prevent safety and operational issues at your facilities, and introduce related motor testing training topics, and details regarding which tests can be conducted while the plant is in operation versus which tests require a shutdown will be discussed. 

Proper electrical grounding and bonding of equipment helps ensure that the electrical equipment and systems safely remove the possibility of electric shock, by limiting the voltage imposed on electrical equipment and systems from lightning, line surges, unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines, or ground-fault conditions. Proper grounding and bonding is important for personnel protection, with electrical safety tips offering practical guidance, as well as for compliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.304(g) Grounding.

It has been determined that more than 70 per cent of all electrical problems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, including large projects like the New England Clean Power Link, are due to poor grounding, and bonding errors. Without proper electrical grounding and bonding, sensitive electronic equipment is subjected to destruction of data, erratic equipment operation, and catastrophic damage. This electrical grounding and bonding training course will National Electrical Code.

Complete course details here:

https://electricityforum.com/electrical-training/electrical-grounding-nec

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

US SF6 Emissions Decline as NOAA analysis and EPA mitigation show progress, with atmospheric measurements and Greenhouse Gas Reporting verifying reductions from the electric power grid; sulfur hexafluoride's extreme global warming potential underscores inventory improvements.

Key Points

A documented drop in US sulfur hexafluoride emissions, confirmed by NOAA atmospheric data and EPA reporting reforms.

✅ NOAA towers and aircraft show 2007-2018 decline

✅ EPA reporting and utility mitigation narrowed inventory gaps

✅ Winter leaks and servicing signal further reduction options

A new NOAA analysis shows U.S. emissions of the super-potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) have declined between 2007-2018, likely due to successful mitigation efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the electric power industry, with attention to SF6 in the power industry across global markets. 

At the same time, significant disparities that existed previously between NOAA’s estimates, which are based on atmospheric measurements, and EPA’s estimates, which are based on a combination of reported emissions and industrial activity, have narrowed following the establishment of the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The findings, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, also suggest how additional emissions reductions might be achieved. 

SF6 is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high-voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity, and its emissions have been increasing worldwide as electric power systems expand, even as regions hit milestones like California clean energy surpluses in recent years. Smaller amounts of SF6 are used in semiconductor manufacturing and in magnesium production. 

SF6 traps 25,000 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale for equal amounts of emissions, and while CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 globally, that comparison underscores the potency of SF6. That means a relatively small amount of the gas can have a significant impact on climate warming. Because of its extremely large global warming potential and long atmospheric lifetime, SF6 emissions will influence Earth’s climate for thousands of years.

In this study, researchers from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, as record greenhouse gas concentrations drive demand for better data, working with colleagues at EPA, CIRES, and the University of Maryland, estimated U.S. SF6 emissions for the first time from atmospheric measurements collected at a network of tall towers and aircraft in NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. The researchers provided an estimate of SF6 emissions independent from the EPA’s estimate, which is based on reported SF6 emissions for some industrial facilities and on estimated SF6 emissions for others.

“We observed differences between our atmospheric estimates and the EPA’s activity-based estimates,” said study lead author Lei Hu, a Global Monitoring Laboratory researcher who was a CIRES scientist at the time of the study. “But by closely collaborating with the EPA, we were able to identify processes potentially responsible for a significant portion of this difference, highlighting ways to improve emission inventories and suggesting additional emission mitigation opportunities, such as forthcoming EPA carbon capture rules for power plants, in the future.” 

In the 1990s, the EPA launched voluntary partnerships with the electric power, where power-sector carbon emissions are falling as generation shifts, magnesium, and semiconductor industries to reduce SF6 emissions after the United States recognized that its emissions were significant. In 2011, large SF6 -emitting facilities were required to begin tracking and reporting their emissions under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 

Hu and her colleagues documented a decline of about 60 percent in U.S. SF6 emissions between 2007-2018, amid global declines in coal-fired power in some years—equivalent to a reduction of between 6 and 20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions during that time period—likely due in part to the voluntary emission reduction partnerships and the EPA reporting requirement. A more modest declining trend has also been reported in the EPA’s national inventories submitted annually under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Examining the differences between the NOAA and EPA independent estimates, the researchers found that the EPA’s past inventory analyses likely underestimated SF6 emissions from electrical power transmission and distribution facilities, and from a single SF6 production plant in Illinois. According to Hu, the research collaboration has likely improved the accuracy of the EPA inventories. The 2023 draft of the EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021 used the results of this study to support revisions to its estimates of SF6 emissions from electrical transmission and distribution. 

The collaboration may also lead to improvements in the atmosphere-based estimates, helping NOAA identify how to expand or rework its network to better capture emitting industries or areas with significant emissions, according to Steve Montzka, senior scientist at GML and one of the paper’s authors.

Hu and her colleagues also found a seasonal variation in SF6 emissions from the atmosphere-based analysis, with higher emissions in winter than in summer. Industry representatives identified increased servicing of electrical power equipment in the southern states and leakage from aging brittle sealing materials in the equipment in northern states during winter as likely explanations for the enhanced wintertime emissions—findings that suggest opportunities for further emissions reductions.

“This is a great example of the future of greenhouse gas emission tracking, where inventory compilers and atmospheric scientists work together to better understand emissions and shed light on ways to further reduce them,” said Montzka.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Tucson Electric Power Coal Phaseout advances an Integrated Resource Plan to exit Springerville coal by 2032, lift renewables past 70 percent by 2035, add wind, solar, battery storage, and cut carbon emissions 80 percent.

Key Points

A 2032 coal exit and 2035 plan to lift renewables above 70 percent, add wind, solar, storage, and cut CO2 80 percent.

✅ Coal purchases end at Springerville units by 2032

✅ Renewables exceed 70 percent of load by 2035

✅ 80 percent CO2 cut from 2005 baseline via wind, solar, storage

In a dramatic policy shift, Tucson Electric Power says it will stop using coal to generate electricity by 2032 and will increase renewable energy's share of its energy load to more than 70% by 2035.

As part of that change, the utility will stop buying electricity from its two units at its coal-fired Springerville Generating Station by 2032. The plant, TEP's biggest power source, provides about 35% of its energy.

The utility already had planned to start up two New Mexico wind farms and a solar storage plant in the Tucson area by next year. The new plan calls for adding an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2035.

The utility's switch from fossil fuels is spelled out in the plan, submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, amid shifts in federal power plant rules that could affect implementation. Called an Integrated Resource Plan, it would reduce TEP's carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2035 compared with 2005 levels.

The plan drew generally positive reviews from a number of environmentalists and other representatives of an advisory committee that had worked with TEP for a year.

Two commissioners, Chairman Bob Burns and Tucsonan Lea Marquez Peterson, also generally praised the plan, although they held off on final judgment.

University of Arizona researchers said the plan would likely meet the utility's share of the worldwide goal of holding down global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, even as studies find that climate change threatens grid reliability in many regions.

But a representative of AARP and the Pima Council on Aging expressed concern because the plan would require 1% annual electric rate increases a year to put into effect.

Officials in the eastern Arizona town of Springerville aren't happy.

And Sierra Club official Sandy Bahr said the plan doesn't move fast enough to get TEP off coal. She listed 14 separate units of various Western coal-fired plants that are scheduled to shut down sooner than 2032, many in the 2020s.

But TEP says the plan best balances costs and environmental benefits compared with 24 others it reviewed.

"We know our customers want safe, reliable energy from resources that are both affordable and environmentally responsible. TEP's 2020 Integrated Resource Plan will help us maintain that delicate balance," TEP CEO David Hutchens wrote in the forward to the plan.

The plan isn't legally binding but is aimed at sending a signal to regulators and the public about TEP's future direction. TEP and other regulated Arizona utilities update such plans every three years.

TEP has been one of the West's more fossil-fuel-friendly utilities. It stuck with coal even as many other utilities were moving away from it, including Alliant Energy's carbon-neutral plan to cut emissions and costs, and as the Sierra Club called on utilities to move beyond what it termed a highly polluting energy source that emits large quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming.

Last year, TEP got 13% of its electricity from renewables such as wind farms and solar plants along with photovoltaic solar panels atop individual homes. Fossil fuels coal and natural gas supplied the rest, a University of Arizona study paid for by TEP found.

Economics, not just emissions, a big factor

TEP's previous resource plan, from 2017, called for boosting renewable use to 30% by 2030 and to cut coal to 38% of its electric load by then from 69% in 2017, reflecting broader 2017 utility trends across the industry.

A TEP official said last week the utility is heading in a different direction not only due to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions but because of changing economics.

"For the last several decades, coal was the most economical resource. It was the lowest-cost resource to supply energy for our customers, and it wasn't really close," said Jeff Yockey, TEP's resource planning director.

But over the past few years, first natural gas prices and more recently solar and wind energy prices have fallen dramatically, he said.

Their prices are projected to keep falling, along with the cost of battery-fueled storage of solar energy for use when the sun is down, he said.

"Coal just isn't the most economical resource" now, Yockey said.

Yet the utility still needs, for now, the extra energy capacity that coal provides, he said, even as other states outline ways to improve grid reliability through targeted investments.

"Being a utility with no nuclear or hydro(electric) energy, with coal, there is reliability, a fuel on the ground, 30 or 90 days supply," he said. "It's the only source not subject to disruption in the next hour. It's our only long-term, stable fuel supply. Over time, we will be able to overcome that."

UA researchers, community panel worked on plan

TEP paid the UA $100,000 to have three researchers prepare two reports, one comparing 24 different proposals and a second comparing TEP's fossil fuel/renewable split with those of other utilities.

Also, the utility appointed an advisory council representing environmental, business and government interests that met regularly to guide TEP in producing the plan. The utility chose a preferred energy "portfolio," Yockey said.

The goal "was very much about basically achieving significant emissions reductions as quickly as we can and as cost effectively as we can," he said. TEP wanted the biggest cumulative emission cut possible over 15 years.

"If it was just about cost, we wouldn't have selected the portfolio that we selected. It wasn't the lowest cost portfolio."

UA assistant research professors Ben McMahan and Will Holmgren said combined carbon dioxide emission reductions from TEP's new plan over 15 years would be expected to hit the Paris accord's 2-degree target.

"There is considerable uncertainty about what will happen between now and 2050, but the preferred portfolio's early start on reductions and lowest cumulative emissions is certainly a positive sign that well below 2C is achievable," the researchers said in an email.

Environmentalists pleased, but some want coal cut sooner

The Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and Pima County offered varying degrees of praise for the new TEP plan.

In a memo Friday, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry congratulated TEP for "the comprehensive, inclusive and transparent process" used to develop the plan.

Because of UA's involvement, TEP's advisory council and the public "can feel confident that the utility is on track to make significant progress in curbing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change," Huckelberry wrote.

The TEP plan "is the most aggressive commitment to reducing emissions by a utility in Arizona," said Autumn Johnson of Western Resource Advocates in a news release.

"Adding clean energy generation and storage while accelerating the retirement of coal units will ensure a healthier and better future for Arizonans," said Johnson, an energy policy analyst in Phoenix.

The Sierra Club will have a technical expert review the plan and already wants more energy savings, said Bahr, director of the group's Grand Canyon chapter. But overall, this plan is a step in the right direction for TEP, she said.

By comparison, Arizona Public Service's new resource plan only calls for 45% renewable energy by 2030, Bahr noted, while California regulators consider more power plants to ensure reliability. APS committed to going coal-free by 2031.

A Sierra Club proposal that the UA reviewed called for TEP to quit coal by 2027.

But TEP analyzed that proposal and concluded it would require $300 million in investments and would reduce the utility's cumulative emissions by only 2.4 million tons, to 70.2 million tons by 2035, Yockey said.

The Sierra Club plan was the most expensive portfolio investigated, Yockey said.

"The difference is in the timing. We still have a fair amount of value in our coal plants which we need to depreciate, which we do over time," Yockey said. "Trying to replace the capacity that coal provides in the near term with storage and solar is very expensive, although those costs are declining."

Seniors on fixed incomes could be hurt, advocate says

Rene Pina, an advisory council member representing two senior citizen organizations, praised the plan's goals but was concerned about impacts of even 1% annual rate increases on elderly people on fixed incomes.

They can't always handle such an increase, he said.

One possible fix is that TEP could ease eligibility requirements for its low-income energy assistance program, aligning with equity-focused electricity regulation principles, to allow more seniors to benefit, said Pina, representing AARP and the Pima Council on Aging.

"The program is structured so it just barely disqualifies most of our seniors. Their social security pension is just barely over the low-income limit. It can easily be adjusted without any problems to the utility," Pina said.

Advisory council member Rob Lamb, an engineer with GHLN, an architecture-engineering firm, said he was very pleased with TEP's plan.

"One of the things a lot of people don't realize when they put together a plan like that, is they have to balance environment with 'Hey, what's the reliability of service? Are we going to be able to keep our rates for something that will work?'" Lamb said.

"This a very balanced and resilient portfolio."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News