Georgia’s Public Service Commissioner Tricia Pridemore appeared before the House Energy Climate Grid Subcommittee on Feb. 14 and made one request to Congress: “Rein in the EPA.”
“They’re putting unnecessary burdens on the backs of ratepayers, and they’re certainly limiting innovation,” she said.
Ms. Pridemore was called as a key witness along with Indiana’s Utility Regulatory Commission chairman Jim Huston, the Colorado Energy Office’s senior director of policy Keith Hay, and Arizona Corporation Commissioner Nick Myers to testify on their state’s energy and utility situation concerning new regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“Threats to electric grid reliability are growing due to environmental regulations, policies from state legislatures and agencies, bans on fossil fuel generation, and market distortions,” subcommittee chairman Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said in his opening statement. “These factors are contributing to premature retirement for most of our reliable and dispatchable resources.”
Struggle with EPA
The four witnesses answered questions from more than 25 congressmen and women for three hours, during which several of them used part of their allotted time to put their own state’s energy struggles on the record.The consensus among both Republicans and Democrats appeared to be that there is no objection to moving beyond energy sources like coal. The disagreements came over how that transition is being undertaken, with affordability and reliability being of primary concern.
Ms. Pridemore testified about the strides her state has made in diversifying its energy sources, touting the fact that Georgia ranks fourth for solar power, the development of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, and maintaining a level of energy self-sufficiency.
However, she argued the EPA’s new proposal threatens to take away state control.
Mr. Huston emphasized the reality of cost increases when he shared Indiana’s track record, reporting that, over the past 20 years, coal-powered energy generation has gone from 90-95 percent to around 45 percent, with natural gas, nuclear power, wind power, and others making up the majority.
“As continued environmental regulations were introduced on coal facilities, utilities made the necessary investments to keep them operating,” he said. “These costs of investments impacted Indiana’s price ranking, which went from being in the top five in the country of affordable rates ... to 29th in the country.”
Mr. Myers said his state has been faced with the combination of “early forced retirement of coal plants without adequate replacement,” authorizing new purchase power agreements, and building reliable dispatchable energy generation in the form of natural gas.
“Our ratepayers are paying three times for the same energy generation that could be had by simply keeping our existing generation online until natural retirement or even beyond that,” he said.
Mr. Myers also said that there is a significant problem with bureaucratic red tape, delaying infrastructure projects like gas pipelines and interstate energy transmission cables for years.
Colorado Coal-Free by 2030
Only Mr. Hay was confident in his state’s ability to keep pace with the current expectations when it comes to transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy while keeping electricity rates below the national average.“Pursuant to statutory planning requirements, Colorado’s utilities are projected to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 84 to 87 percent by 2030,” he said. “Our last coal plants in the state will retire by the end of 2030.”
The Colorado grid can hit a 94 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution by 2040, he said, and gas will supply just 2 percent of the state’s electricity.
But to hit those numbers, Mr. Hay said, “Colorado will need to triple its wind capacity and quintuplet solar capacity between now and 2040.”
He also said that Colorado’s plan relies significantly on battery-stored energy gathered from solar and wind, as well as clean hydrogen power.
When pressed by subcommittee members, he affirmed his belief that if his state could do it, other states could do it, too.
Not Affordable
Several Democratic members of the subcommittee also touted the tens of billions of dollars their party has put toward or attempted to put toward improving the nation’s grid reliability, as well as the fact that green energy is becoming less expensive.However, several other voices, including three of the four witnesses, disagreed and argued that, although the cost of green energy generation was decreasing, the rapid adoption and forcing them onto low-income citizens is too financially burdensome.
“We’re not talking about a national one-size-fits-all [solution] where we’re mandating what people need to do to get to zero carbon emissions by 2040 or whatever the date is,” said Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO). “What we’re what we’re trying to do is incentivize folks to come up with their own plans.”
Despite possible incentives, the extra cost of choosing more expensive green energy was emphasized by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who stressed the economic hardships being felt by his constituents due to higher electricity costs this winter as a result of new environmental policies.
“If you’re living in a big city, and you’re in one of those bigger bug areas, maybe you can afford it, maybe it’s not that big a chunk of your budget that’s impacted,” he said. However, some people are struggling to cover the average monthly rate.
“This may work for rich folks,” he said of the proposed restrictions. “That’s not who I represent.”
