In the grid transition, rhetoric and policy have gotten ahead of operational realities.
California has been on the forefront of the energy transition, pushing farther and faster than almost anywhere else to add renewable energy, electrify transportation and phase out fossil fuels — and New York has been close behind.
But in August, the California Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to approve a major expansion of the natural gas storage facilities at the Aliso Canyon Storage facility outside Los Angeles. And earlier this year, the state moved to keep three large gas plants online longer and extend the life of the state’s only major nuclear facility, despite years of promises to the contrary.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, a staunch progressive, has backed the utilities commission and endorsed keeping many resources on the grid for much longer than planned. The reason is plain: Without these resources, the state cannot keep the lights on.
This decision is a tacit admission that the rhetoric and policy demands of the energy transition are sometimes racing well ahead of difficult operational realities. Flipping over our electric system is not as simple as flipping a switch.
In New York, grid operator NYISO is warning of potential energy shortfalls if transmission lines aren’t upgraded fast enough to make up for the planned closure of older fossil fuel power plants. NYISO suggested that older gas- and oil-fired “peaker” plants that support the grid during high demand might have to remain in service for many years. Meanwhile, electric vehicles, heat pumps and other electrification technologies are driving peak demand to new heights.
Four offshore wind projects were to provide thousands of essential megawatts to replace natural gas and help the state meet its 2030 target of 70 percent renewable energy. Now all four have come to the state to ask for more money and warn that without it, they may not be able to build the projects at all.
California may be the first to admit it, but the challenges it has faced should be a warning to New York.
Dispatchable resources like natural gas and nuclear are the only ones that can consistently produce power today to meet needs on demand, independent of weather. Efforts to build vast amounts of solar, wind and energy storage to replace those resources are promising but have hit a series of permitting challenges, local opposition and financial difficulties.
Policy choices are making the problem greater. Grid operators and regulators are increasingly warning that plant retirements are a pressing threat to their ability to keep the lights on. Conventional plants continue to announce early retirements, with that trend likely to be exacerbated by the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule that would require gas plants to shut down or deploy carbon capture and hydrogen technologies that aren’t yet commercially available. As a result, the gap between the power the grid needs and the power the grid will be able to produce is growing.
Policy ideals alone do not change the hard truths of engineering and physics. That the leading environmentally focused state in the country is acknowledging that fact should be a sign for states like New York headed down this same path.
The effort to add more clean energy to the grid and reduce emissions continues to move full steam ahead — as it should. But policymakers have to be clear-eyed about the realities of the grid we have today. What has been referred to as an energy transition really needs to be an energy expansion – without shuttering the resources that keep the lights on too quickly, and keeping all options on the table.
