The Ft. Calhoun Station (FCS) is scheduled to shut down for good on Monday, October 24. The number of operating nuclear power reactors in the US will have been … [Read More...] about Another nuclear plant will close for good on Monday
A coalition of electric power producers that operate natural gas-burning generation plants have filed suit in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. They are challenging the New York State Department of Public Service’s (NYSDPS) recently enacted Zero Emission Credit.
Competition wasn’t designed with customers in mind
The lawsuit filing document Indicates that the market structure that disadvantages nuclear power plants and encourages their owners to consider permanently closing is a feature, not a bug, of electricity “deregulation.” The document makes it abundantly clear that power generators burning natural gas have partnered with renewable energy marketers, appointed federal officials and antinuclear activists to create market rules that are purposely designed to make continued operation of nuclear power plants uneconomic.
Aside: Electricity market “deregulation” was an idea that received heavy marketing and lobbying expenditures by powerful corporations like Enron, Westinghous, General Electric and Siemens. Those entities touted the benefits of “competition” loudly and repeatedly, but the plan was never about providing customers with better service or lower prices. Companies don’t spend money for altruistic reasons; investors wouldn’t accept that kind of behavior.
They do, however, invest in political actions that might help them grow their businesses and increase their profitability even if it is at the expensive of competitors and customers. End Aside.
Once the owners of operating nuclear plants have reached the point at which they are losing money under the current auction rules, they are supposed to permanently exit the market. That will force capacity and energy prices to rise. The price increases will moderate after they have reached a level high enough for long enough to encourage the construction of generation systems that can be built sited and built quickly, remotely controlled or provided with skeleton crews, allowed to remain idle much of the time and respond quickly when market prices rise sharply, signaling the fact that they are needed right away.
Those new generators usually qualify to bid into capacity markets with minimal or non-existent fuel storage capacity, making them dependent on the ability of a different market and infrastructure to supply them with the fuel they need to generate power.
Risk from achieving the desired end state
Rather than being able to make relatively minor adjustments to a system with a strong foundation provided by always on, low marginal cost, stable, high-inertia electrical power generators, future grid operators will be expected to produce electricity responsively from a system offering ever fewer predictable parameters.
Instead of coordinating the output of a limited number of controllable generators to respond to changes in customer needs and desires, the grid operators are supposed to conduct a much more complex system. Their job will be akin to attempting to produce coherent music with a mix of players that includes a shrinking population of disciplined orchestra veterans, a group of variably talented jazz improvisors and a growing number of raw amateurs who recently joined the middle school band.
The power system that the Coalition for Competitive Electricity wants would include disparate, weather-dependent power systems that rely on ever rising support from hydrocarbon-burning power generators. Their desired power system does not value cleanliness, career jobs, local tax roles, predictable pricing, or onsite fuel storage produced along with electricity by nuclear plants. It assumes that the fuel delivery infrastructure can infinitely expand and that customer demand can be economically rationed to fit within available power capacity.
Of course, the filing that the coalition’s attorneys produced does not describe the members’ goals in exactly the words used above, but the intent can be gleaned from the document with only a modest reliance on critical thinking and reading comprehension.
What does the lawsuit say?
For example, page 4 of the complaint states:
The ZEC payments threaten to disrupt the economically efficient function of the FERC-approved monthly capacity market auctions administered by the NYISO. In anticiapation of significant disruption to the April 2017 and subsequent monthly capacity market results, financial over-the-counter capacity markets that trade in advance of the FERC-sponsored auctions have already shown dramatic price declines as a result of the ZEC Order. These declines reflect that nuclear plants that were scheduled to leave the market are now likely to remain in operation. The artificial retention of the nuclear units in the market has a significant effect on wholesale capacity market prices subject to FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Translation: We were expecting to receive higher prices for our plants to sit idle, ready to start up if needed, as the market structure that we helped to craft forced nuclear plant operators to lose money. Those operators were supposed to respond by permanently retiring their capacity. That would leave plenty of room for our capacity while still producing the market tightness that drives prices higher.
The filing accidentally describes the benefit to the system and to customers of having large, low marginal cost, reliable generators as part of the supply mix. They keep prices under control and can help prevent the price spikes that can occur with the perception of a lack of adequate supply.
(From page 14) A large price-taking unit significantly decreases energy market prices paid to competitors, as it injects large quantities of energy into the grid, which lowers market-clearing prices. As long as energy-market prices, on average, are higher than the nuclear unit’s marginal operating costs, this may be financially sustainable for a nuclear unit, since the total revenues earned will exceed the unit’s costs of production.
(Page 21) Because capacity-market prices are sensitive to even small shifts in the supply/demand, the decrease in total capacity market costs can be large. In some cases, the reduction in total capacity market costs can exceed the artificial subsidy needed to cause the distortion in prices.
That last point is important and says what many nuclear advocates have been saying for a long time. Moderate revenue increases, probably much lower than the cost of replacing their capacity, are suffficient to keep nuclear plants running.
By the document’s own admission, the reduction in capacity payments to nuclear competitors might reach $15 billion during the 12-year period in which the maximum ZEC payment to retained nuclear plants would be $7.6 billion. The authors try to minimize the importance of that cost comparison with the following statement.
While artificially depressed (below-market) energy and capacity prices may save New York ratepayers money in the short run, these savings will be [partially] offset by both increased costs of the ZECs themselves and by the enormous [vague and uncalculated] forgone benefits of competition and more efficient generation over the long run.
The document also describes what the current market dynamic is doing to nuclear plant income.
Recent decreases in energy-production costs, however, largely driven by access of cheap shale gas, have decreased energy prices below the level necessary to keep some nuclear plants operating.
If gas prices rise faster than currently expected by most market observers, energy prices will quickly rise to levels that are sufficient to keep nuclear plants operating. NYSDPS recognized and accounted for this possibility when it designed the ZEC; the price for the ZEC phases down gradually once prices exceed a certain level and disappears completely once prices hit a second trigger point.
Here’s another intriguing statement (from page 22).
Artificially suppressed prices threaten the viability of more efficient generators, including Plaintiffs, and discourage investment in efficient new, flexible generators better suited to integrate weather-dependent, zero-carbon renewable generating resources like wind and solar. Accordingly, not only will the ZEC program ultimately lead to higher wholesale prices, but it will also stifle the unquestionable environmental benefits derived from competitive electric markets.
That statement raises a number of questions. By what measures are the generators “more efficient?” It seems that the only measure of importance for the Plaintiffs is the ability to bid at the lowest prices in short term markets and to be able to dramatically reduce carrying costs if the electricity isn’t being sold at a high enough price.
How long will it take before the higher wholesale prices predicted will materialize? What if the moderate revenue rewards for clean energy, good jobs and local tax considerations help to keep those “uneconomic” nuclear plants running for another several decades and encourage the construction of additional units that can qualify for the ZEC?
By whose judgement are the environmental benefits of replacing zero emission nuclear with a combination of moderate emission natural gas plus zero emission wind and solar “unquestionable?” What if the efficient market solution is a mostly gas grid – as long as unexpected price spikes and supply interruptions never occur?
Why haven’t plaintiffs filed suit against RECs and tax credits?
When discussing this lawsuit with colleagues, some have wondered why the coalition hasn’t challenged the market damaging effects of favoritism toward wind and solar? Why do they support the continuation of federal tax credits — which amount to direct market subsidies for systems that might otherwise be completely uneconomical — and renewable energy credits (RECs) that are similar to the ZEC for nuclear for wind and solar?
The — rather weak — defense of this seeming disconnect can be found on page 23.
Since the fundamental basis for the complaint is that New York’s ZEC is preempted by the federal governments assertion of jurisdiction over wholesale electricity markets under the interstate Commerce Clause, the defense of renewable source favoritism rests on federal law.
According to the plaintiffs, federal law allows states to set different prices for certain types of renewable generators but does not allow states to establish favorable prices for nuclear generators. That might be the case if you limit the areas of federal law and regulations referenced, but the Clean Power Plan will most likely allow states to devise structures that encourage nuclear plant construction and retention to meet emission reduction goals.
The plaintiffs also take a pass on challenging the federal government’s decision to subsidize renewables. That’s probably prudent, the federal government is hard to sue.
There is one part of the complaint that might be on solid legal ground. As currently structured, nuclear generators from outside of New York that sell their power into the state’s wholesale market are not eligible for ZECs. Neither are other zero carbon — like small hydro or Indian Point — sources of electricity. A case can be made that excluding out of state vendors amounts to interference in interstate commerce and that exclusion of other sources of zero-carbon electricity that are not already able to qualify for RECs is unfair.
I am no fan of competition in electricity markets. Continuous, reliable supply of the product is too important to the functioning of our society to allow it to be left to market forces, especially the kind of imperfect market that is the result of the special characteristics of electrical power.
Without careful crafting, markets do not value product features like strong employee training programs, contributions to local organizations, environmental cleanliness, STEM education encouragement or local tax bases.
Electricity is a vital product. The system that delivers it to customers really is a natural monopoly that should be fully integrated from power generation to current delivery. It should be operated by well-supervised and regulated technical and operational experts who are adequately compensated to serve the public.
The United States created such a system out of the mess produced in the Insull era of the 1920s. The power system our grandparents created became the envy of the world and was immitated by many others. There’s no reason we cannot return to thosetraditional electric utility system structures. We know how it was done and have a number of excellent examples still operating today.
The Ft. Calhoun Station (FCS) is scheduled to shut down for good on Monday, October 24. The number of operating nuclear power reactors in the US will have been in the three digits again for a just one week.
That event will be a tragic shame for the surrounding community, for a gradually growing portion of the 700 people that were employed at the plant when the closure decision was made, for all of the people in the area where the air will be a little dirtier and for all of the people who are concerned about the long term effects of climate change driven by CO2 emissions.
The first employees to be laid off will include nuclear engineers, chemists and clerks. At the beginning of September, they received their 60 day notice that their jobs disappear on October 31, just one week after the plant shuts down for the last time.
Closing the plant eliminates a steady supply of 473 MW of ultra low emission electricity that has a low, predictable marginal cost if all goes well.
Cost increasing headwinds
All has not gone well in recent years for the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), the owner of the Ft. Calhoun facility. Too many unpredicted things happened that added unplanned costs at the same time that temptingly cheap alternatives became available.
There was a fire in a nuclear plant in Alabama that added a long term operational cost for fire protection.
There was an attack against several office buildings near the US East Coast that added increased costs for security guards, increased capital costs for new equipment and ongoing operational costs to maintain that equipment.
There was an earthquake and tsunami in Japan that knocked out electrical power long enough to permanently melt parts of the reactor core of three nuclear units. Reaction to that event added tens of millions of dollars of capital costs plus ongoing maintenance and operational costs.
The Missouri River, on whose banks Ft. Calhoun was built, flooded and threatened the plant. An inspection after that event revealed minor operational and management issues that ended up keeping the plant off-line and unproductive for three years. When the plant was finally allowed to operate, it was in the NRC “penalty box” of enhanced supervision to improve operational performance.
Isn’t OPPD a regulated utility?
Even though OPPD is a regulated monopoly utility that can distribute prudently expended costs among a captive base of customers, the company is a public utility owned by those customers. It has continuing pressure from its owners to keep rates low. Its board of director has stated a goal of supplying reliable power at a rate that is 20% lower than the rates in nearby service territories.
In light of that pressure the board is always looking for ways to keep costs under control. Cost control and predictability is supposed to be a key advantage for owning a nuclear power plant, but those haven’t been attributes that Ft Calhoun has consistently delivered.
As Ft. Calhoun’s operating costs increased and as it experienced a lengthy period in which it was not functional, wholesale electricity prices in areas surrounding OPPD’s service territory plummeted due to the combination of a glut-induced low price for natural gas and a growing supply of wind power with its nearly zero marginal cost.
Why is FCS closing now?
In the spring of 2016, after the final version of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan showed that it would provide zero credit to existing nuclear plants for producing power without CO2 emissions, the OPPD board of directors tasked its management staff to provide cost-informed options for its future portfolio. The managers hired an (ostensibly) independent consulting company to develop a set of scenarios with various generating alternatives and power purchasing options.
That company, Pace Global, whose letterhead proudly proclaims that it is a Siemens Business, produced a report titled Overview of Omaha Public Power District’s Generation Portfolio Analysis dated May 20, 2016 that concluded that there was no analyzed scenario in which keeping FCS open was an economically advantageous option compared to an increased reliance on purchased power, demand side management, power storage in chemical batteries and increased use of weather-dependent sources of power, mainly wind and solar.
Aside: I should explain why I used the word “ostensibly” to modify “independent” with regard to Pace Global. As a Siemens business, it has a corporate parent that is a major equipment supplier for natural gas and wind generation.
While Siemens was once a major nuclear plant supplier, it has made openly announced moves to reduce its involvement with nuclear energy, seeing limited opportunities in the sector. It’s quite logical to believe that the connection to Siemens influenced Pace’s assumptions for future price of important variables as shown in a series of graphs on page 4 of its report to OPPD. End Aside.
Less than a month after the board received the report from Pace Global, it voted to close FCS and provided the following summary of the factors that influenced their decision.
Market conditions are a major factor in today’s decision by the board. Historically low natural gas prices are a contributing factor; they reduce OPPD’s cost to generate electricity using natural gas. In addition, consumers are using less energy.
The final version of the proposed Clean Power Plan is another factor. It does not give carbon-free generation credit for existing nuclear plants such as FCS.
The board also looked at economies of scale. FCS is the smallest rated commercial unit in North America, based on accredited capability. Larger and multi-unit nuclear plants can spread costs over high levels of production.
Slow load growth and increasing regulatory and operational costs have led to the recent early retirement of several other U.S. nuclear generating stations.
OPPD President and CEO Tim Burke added, “As tough as this decision is, we cannot afford to ignore the changes happening around us. We must look to the future.”
Very soon after the board’s decision, OPPD passed the deadline by which it would have normally ordered a new batch of fuel. Without new fuel, the plant had a limited run time remaining. It began coasting down a couple of weeks ago; it was producing 81% of its full power capacity yesterday and will reach 75% before it is shut down on Monday.
I’ve tried to make contact with OPPD leaders through a contact form on the company web site, but I haven’t received any responses.
I wanted to ask if the board made any effort to find a buyer for the plant and the surrounding 660 acre riverfront site. I wonder if they had considered the option of retaining the plant in a shut down condition — like TVA did with Browns Ferry for a couple of decades. Finally, I was curious to find out if they were still confident that the natural gas prices used in the May 2016 analysis were still reasonable given recent market trends.
It’s worth noting that OPPD once began a project to add a second unit to the current site. It would have been a 1000 MWe Westinghouse 4-loop PWR. There’s plenty of land and water available for expansion; there’s even high ground only a few hundred yards from the river.
Though there is, in fact, a tiny sliver of a chance that the shut down decision can be reversed, I have been unable to find any evidence or even any hints that anyone is taking the necessary steps. Those steps include, but are not limited to, halting or delaying the action I consider to be the absolute point of nor return. Under the current trajectory, which seems unlikely to be disturbed, OPPD will submit the final document that will seal FCS’s fate sometime in mid November.
That normally single sheet letter will certify to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that all fuel has been removed from the reactor and that the license holder will never again operate the plant. After receiving that letter, the NRC will issue a license amendment that converts the current operating license into a “possession only” license under which OPPD will have 60 years to complete decommissions activities.
In order to begin operating again, a plant with a possession only license would need to undergo a new license application process and meet all currently imposed requirements for new plants. There is a higher probability for me to win a mega-millions lottery than for FCS to be restored after OPPD gives up its current operating license. (I have never purchased a mega-millions lottery ticket and have no intention of every doing so.)
The decommissioning fund is about $800 million dollars shy of the estimated $1.2 billion decommissioning cost, so OPPD will be charging its customers a fee in their bill that will be computed to build up the decommissioning fund to full requirements by 2033.
Though the closure plan came with a promise from OPPD to freeze current rates for 5 years, that promise has a limited term. I slso suspect that there are provisions within the promise that allow rate adjustments in the case of a fuel price increase that surprises the market.
I personally wouldn’t be surprised if gas prices rise Moreno quickly than expected, given the falling production in seven out of eight major shale gas resource basins along with the increased export of gas in the form of LNG and via pipelines to Mexico. Among gas market prognosticators, I’m in a minority.
Despite the currently abysmal state of the market, Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI), owner of the 119-million pound deposit at Coles Hill, continues legal efforts to overturn the ostensibly temporary moratorium on uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The most recent step in the process for overturning the moratorium, first established in 1982 pending the […]
After the first hour of the second Trump-Clinton debate, I was beginning to worry that I wouldn’t be able to fulfill my assignment to write about the way that the candidates spoke about my coverage area. There was no mention of energy, clean energy, nuclear energy or climate change. Finally, at 1:02:40 on this video […]
Late on a Friday afternoon (September 23), the Department of Energy released an updated performance report on the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). DOE’s internal Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessment in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced the report using assumptions and data provided by DOE leadership. The report concludes […]
Human activity has created a carbon dioxide problem. Dr. Frank Shu and his team have a partial solution called “supertorrefaction” that is worth sharing. Problem Solving Versus Panicking When faced with problems, rather than panic or fret, people with an engineering mindset prefer finding solutions using the best available tools. The more creative members of […]
This is a call to action. The Department of Energy is soliciting comments on its excess uranium management plan. The deadline for comments, initially announced as August 18, 2016, has been extended until September 19. That is just 4 days away. Here is a quote from the Federal Register request for information: The U.S. Department […]
A high fidelity simulation of the North American Eastern Interconnect known as ERGIS–Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study–indicates that the system could continue to function in the year 2026, even if as much as 30% of its annual electricity generation and consumption was produced using variable power sources like the wind and the sun. At the […]
Loyal Atomic Insights readers might wonder why it’s been more than a week since I last wrote a post here. Those who follow @atomicrod on Twitter might have noticed a few hints about what I’ve been busily doing for the last ten days or so. It seems likely to me that Thomas Gold, Dimitri Mendeleev, […]
Deepwater Wind has completed attaching blades to the last of five massive, 6 MWe peak capacity wind turbines that make up the 30 MWe Block Island Wind Farm. That is one of the final steps in the process of installing and commissioning the facility. By the end of 2016, the developer expects that the project […]
Joe Romm recently wrote a piece for Climate Progress titled Nuclear Power Is Losing Money At An Astonishing Rate. In that post Romm exaggerates the amount of support that the New York Zero Emissions Credit (ZEC) will provide, absolves the massive build out of industrial scale wind and solar from any responsibility for contributing to […]
If you plan to attend future nuclear energy rallies, it might be worthwhile to practice singing Battle Hymn of the Atom. It’s sung to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic Update (posted August 16 at 6:45 PM EST) After incorporating the inputs from comments here, this is the current version. Battle Hymn of […]