- Secretary Perry: Without sufficient nuclear plants, grid stability could be in jeopardy
- NEI’s Korsnick says 202(c) emergency request could provide “necessary bridge”
- Korsnick calls for longer term solutions including market reform, tax incentives
It’s time to act to preserve baseload power generation sources, including at-risk nuclear plants, Energy Secretary Rick Perry told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week.
“I want to work with you—with the states as well—to find a solution to this. We don’t have time to be studying this anymore with these plants being scheduled, some of them prematurely, to come off line,” Perry said at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy subcommittee.
The preservation of nuclear power plants is vital to national energy security because of the technology’s contribution to a stable, resilient electric grid, Perry said.
“The more important issue is one of national security, of being able to know, without a doubt, that the energy supply will be there when we need it. … The national security side of this is even more important than the economic side.”
The secretary’s comments come on the heels of a request to Perry and the U.S. Department of Energy from FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. asking for emergency action under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to preserve the country’s nuclear power and coal plants. The request came in the wake of the company announcing that without some kind of market relief it would be closing two nuclear plants in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania by 2021.
In a letter to Perry this week, NEI President and Chief Executive Officer Maria Korsnick said that while an administration response to the 202(c) request could offer a temporary solution, more stable, long-term reforms need prompt consideration.
“A Section 202(c) remedy for nuclear resources that are facing premature retirement can provide a necessary bridge before longer-term reforms can be enacted,” Korsnick said.
Korsnick urged federal and state policymakers to enact several more permanent measures, including nuclear production and investment tax credits, federal energy procurement mandates for nuclear, electricity market changes that allow all energy resources to set prices, and that recognize nuclear energy’s non-emitting attributes.
“The policy tools discussed above have long been used to support other components of our nation’s ‘all of the above’ energy portfolio; policymakers should now do the same for nuclear energy.
“And when considering these policies, we encourage you to work closely with states and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ensure that any federal proposal makes sense for energy producers and consumers throughout the nation,” Korsnick said.
At the House hearing, Perry said the 202(c) emergency request is one of the options the administration is considering to ensure the electric grid continues to be reliable and resilient.
“If you do not have sufficient coal and nuclear plants, the day is coming when … the national security of this country is jeopardized,” Perry said.
“This President [Donald Trump] understands that. He has had multiple conversations with me and others in his administration to find a solution. That’s exactly what we’re working on today. 202(c) is one of those. There may be other options which we need to look at.”
During the House hearing, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) noted the importance of nuclear to his home state’s economy and environment and shared his great concern over the premature closure of nuclear power plants.
“These nuclear power plants not only provide good family-supporting jobs, but also affordable, reliable and greenhouse gas free electricity,” Doyle said. “This is putting my state at the edge of a clean air climate disaster.”
Also this week, Washington, D.C.-based think tank Third Way released a report noting how shutdowns of nuclear power plants could cause the country to miss—by a wide margin—its carbon-cutting goals. The report analyzes different scenarios ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent of U.S. nuclear power plants being shuttered.
Even a 20 percent loss of well-performing nuclear power plants would represent “a huge loss of clean energy and a blow to climate efforts,” Third Way Deputy Director of the Clean Energy Program Ryan Fitzpatrick said.
“Allowing nuclear plants to retire puts us years behind schedule in terms of scaling-up our zero-carbon power. Even if we limit the loss of nuclear generation between now and 2030 to just 20 percent, that’s a setback of 4.5 years’ worth of clean energy growth,” he noted.
“If we allow today’s zero-carbon nuclear power to disappear from the grid, much of the growth in renewable power that we’re working so hard to accelerate will be wasted, and precious years will be lost in the process.”