The Post Editorial Don’t try to save coal and nuclear

In evaluating the ongoing transformation of the nation’s electricity grid, the U.S. Department of Energy got the analysis right and the conclusions wrong — offering another example of the conflict between facts and desires in the Trump administration.

The study released last week was commissioned by Energy Secretary Rick Perry in April, and it was feared by renewable energy advocates that it would be used to undermined wind and solar generation. The report doesn’t do that — well, at least not until the end.

What the study finds is that the cheap natural gas and natural gas turbines, along with flat electricity demand, have been the prime cause of coal-fired power plant retirements.

The biggest number of retirements did come in 2015 when new rules went into effect requiring pollution controls for toxic mercury. But the report also noted that the median age of the nation’s coal-fired plants is around 39 years and that the average service life of these plants is 35 to 50 years. So, some of those closures reflect a decision that it wasn’t worth upgrading an old plant.

The study found that renewable generation, such as wind and solar, added flexibility to the electric grid and did not pose a reliability issue.

So far so good. But then the report works hard to find a place for coal and nuclear generation in the future, both of which are struggling.

One problem is the wholesale markets which cover two-thirds of the country, though not the West. In these markets where the lowest prices from power producers are sold first, natural gas and renewables are underbidding coal and nuclear.

In Illinois and New York, this is leading to nuclear plants running in the red. The report’s solution is “fuel-neutral markets.” Does that mean coal would be placed on the same footing as solar, which has zero fuel costs, through federal subsidies?

In essence conceding that nuclear can’t win on price, the report says, “Americans and their elected representatives value the various benefits specific power plants offer, such as jobs, community economic development, low emissions, local tax payments, resilience, energy security, or the national security benefits associated with a nuclear industrial base.”

The report focuses on the issue of resiliency — the ability of the grid to cope with extreme weather, plants suddenly going down and blackouts. A valid concern. But it appears to be used as code for the need to keep baseload coal and nuclear plants rather than the also very reliable natural gas plants or even hydroelectric power.

It even suggests a coal-fired plant keeping bigger supplies of coal on site should be considered a measure of resilience.

We find much good work in the DOE study, and it raises important issues. The wholesale power markets do need an overhaul. As the grid changes and new types of generation and technology are added, reliability and resiliency must be assured. And in the short term the financial woes of operating nuclear power plants need to be addressed.

Still, snaking through the DOE study are anomalous sops to the coal and nuclear industries. President Donald Trump campaigned on digging more coal, and power plants consume 90 percent of that coal. The National Mining Association quickly issued a statement saying it “applauds” the report. But the nation’s power policies cannot be torqued to fit campaign promises. The members of The Denver Post’s editorial board are William Dean Singleton, chairman; Mac Tully, CEO and publisher; Chuck Plunkett, editor of the editorial pages; Megan Schrader, editorial writer; and Cohen Peart, opinion editor.