Energy, economy at a crossroads

When is renewable energy not really renewable?

We define it as something that will always be there — the sun, the wind, flowing water. Fossil fuels, by contrast, are finite, and considering the ongoing damage to the climate that burning them is causing, moving away from traditional fuel sources as fast as possible is among the greatest challenges we face.

Fuel cells, including those manufactured in Connecticut, fall in the middle. We classify them as renewable, but while they are low in emissions, they typically run using natural gas, though not by burning it.

Complicating the issue at hand is the continually sluggish Connecticut economy. Even before the pandemic, we’ve trailed most of the country in job creation. Consequently, environmental groups say they need to frame every proposed action in terms of how many jobs it would create, rather than how much good it would do, if they hope to gain traction in Hartford.

Fuel cells like those made at Danbury-based FuelCell Energy’s factory in Torrington typify the kind of product nearly every politician says they are looking to bring to Connecticut. Well-paying, hightech manufacturing is constantly touted as the key to putting Connecticut back on the map economically, and FuelCell has several hundred of those jobs. It would appear to be the kind of business state government would want to keep happy, and there has been plenty of public aid to the company over the years.

But fuel cell manufacturers and state environmental leaders are at an impasse, and it may hinge on what constitutes renewable energy and whether fuel cells ought to qualify.

The issue arose after last year’s bids for clean energy were awarded by the state, which FuelCell and other manufacturers were initially led to believe they had won before the state rejudged the process. Instead of winning bids for the right to sell 11 megawatts of power, those awards went to solar companies. FuelCell leaders say it was not only unfair, but that they have been given no justification as to why the process was redone and how they came out losers.

The reason, FuelCell executives speculate, is the natural gas that runs their facilities.

It wasn’t long ago the state loved natural gas. Gov. Dannel Malloy wanted to expand it to homes around the state at the expense of oil, and there are huge power plants that have opened in recent years that use exponentially more gas than any fuel cell, with pollution on a completely different scale (as well as much more power generated). We could and should say we need to get away from natural gas, but the target would appear to be massive power plants, not fuel cells.

Plus, regardless of what anyone might prefer, state policy says they qualify as renewable energy, so, until the law is changed, they need to be treated that way.

Officials at the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection didn’t respond directly to FuelCell’s suppositions. They instead provided a fact sheet detailing past support for fuel cells and said its role in last year’s renewable energy awards was limited.

Regardless, FuelCell executives blame DEEP, saying it has taken an anti-natural gas position that would cripple its business. They said in a recent interview they need to reconsider future growth plans in the state, adding that Florida and Texas are eager to lure them away.

Their technology has long been pushed as part of a clean-energy solution, but is losing out to wind and solar, even as FuelCell executives point to the not-insignificant carbon footprint involved in manufacturing and transporting solar panels and wind turbines. Plus there’s the consistency fuel cells offer that’s not dependent on the sun being out or the wind blowing.

Phasing out fossil fuels and curbing climate change is maybe our nation’s top priority. Connecticut has to do its part. But FuelCell appears to deserve some answers. Given all the factors at play, there ought to be a place for fuel cells in our planning.