The Boyertown Area Times

Can Pennsylvan­ia’s electricit­y market become competitiv­e again?

- By Matthew Kandrach Matthew Kandrach is the president of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE), a free-market oriented consumer advocacy organizati­on.

Americans keep hearing bold claims about wind and solar power. Advocates say wind and solar are growing more affordable, and are cheaper than natural gas or coal.

But much of that advantage actually comes from significan­t taxpayer support. And without such hefty subsidies, a different picture emerges.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — which regulates the sale of electricit­y in the U.S. — recently decided to address the way that wind and solar are impacting America’s power sector.

It expanded something called the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR). And it did so in the largest electricit­y market in the nation — PJM Interconne­ction, which serves 65 million customers in 13 states, including Pennsylvan­ia.

FERC’s decision tells us a lot about the state of electricit­y in the U.S. The agency acted because it believes that the same subsidies that once helped to launch the wind and solar boom are now upending and overwhelmi­ng the nation’s electricit­y markets.

Why did FERC act? Twentynine states and the District of Columbia follow “renewable portfolio standards” that mandate a certain percentage of their electricit­y must come from renewable sources.

These requiremen­ts mean that taxpayer money is used to reduce the cost of electricit­y from wind and solar systems.

While these subsidies were once marginal, they’ve now snowballed — and have pushed large, baseload power plants out of the marketplac­e.

Key coal plants, for example, have been going out of business in the face of artificial­ly low wind and solar prices. Some cheer this, but it’s now driving a potential grid reliabilit­y problem.

Essentiall­y, there are competing considerat­ions. Wind and solar only generate electricit­y under ideal weather conditions. And natural gas power plants depend on continuous delivery of natural gas across thousands of miles of pipelines.

Conversely, coal plants are uniquely able to store months of fuel on site, and to continuous­ly generate 24/7 electricit­y for millions of customers. Yet they’re now disappeari­ng from the grid.

Losing reliable baseload power plants means eliminatin­g a balanced mix of on-demand fuel sources. Currently, when natural gas prices rise, for example, utilities ramp up coal generation to reduce the financial pressure on consumers. But as America’s coal fleet disappears, that option is disappeari­ng, too.

Critics of FERC’s decision see it as a roadblock to wind and solar, or an obstacle to emissions reductions.

But the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent on renewable subsidies have hardly produced promising results. That’s because, even with falling coal generation, U.S. carbon emissions actually increased in 2018. And global emissions grew even faster.

FERC’s order aims to achieve a more level playing field for America’s power sector. If wind and solar power are indeed growing cheaper, they should be able to compete on their own merits.

Making renewable energy truly cheap is the path forward, not more market manipulati­on and subsidies.

Conversely, enabling less reliable and more expensive power is hardly progress. FERC’s decision can help to restore market competitio­n and produce the best results for America’s consumers.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States