By David Wojick
In an Executive Order (EO) the President is asserting a new degree of control over what are called the independent federal agencies. There are about 100 of these some of which have tremendous regulatory authority.
Of particular interest is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). A central mission of FERC is maintaining the reliability of America’s electric power grid. This mission has clearly failed as the grid has become dangerously unreliable.
The question is whether the President will use his authority to lead FERC to restore reliability? There are several ways he might do this which are discussed briefly below.
But first there is a much deeper issue that needs to be kept in mind, which is the questionable Constitutional legitimacy of these agencies. What are they independent of? The Constitution only provides for three branches of Government — Congressional, Judicial and Executive.
Claims that these agencies are somehow independent of these branches suggest a murky fourth branch which may be unconstitutional. In fact Justice Scalia said they were unconstitutional and we now have a conservative Supreme Court. So anyone thinking of suing to stop the President should be careful what they wish for.
Getting back to FERC the question is whether the President will get them to take the steps needed to restore grid reliability. I have previously written about two approaches which might work.
The first is very simple in that FERC merely declares a moratorium on connecting to the grid those large generators that are unpredictably intermittent by design. The increasing fraction of grid connected generators that are systemically intermittent is a major factor in the loss of reliability. See my “A simple way to save the grid from more wind and solar” here: https://www.cfact.org/2025/02/17/a-simple-way-to-save-the-grid-from-more-wind-and-solar/
A more elaborate approach is to activate FERC’s reliability regulation system in new ways. This system has failed to date but maybe it can be made to work.
The central figure in the reliability system is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) which consists of eight regional reliability entities covering the interconnected power regions of the US, Canada, and Mexico. Other key figures are the Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Operators as well as the numerous electric utilities.
NERC is authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and FERC rules to maintain and improve the reliability of the grid by issuing standards and procedures that grid users must follow. Clearly NERC has failed its statutory mission as grid reliability has declined to dangerous levels.
I analyzed NERC some time ago and while they have around 100 reliability standards and procedures there is nothing whatever on preventing intermittency from degrading reliability. Such standards are desperately needed to restore reliability.
See my “Constraining Renewables is a National Need” here:
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WOJICKREPORT.pdf
So one approach is to simply stop connecting new intermittent generators to the grid. Another which might be more refined and could also apply to existing generators is for NERC to develop new standards to constrain the impact of intermittency.
Both of these approaches to restoring reliability require orders from FERC which the President might motivate under the new Executive Order. The present Chair of FERC which the President named to that position on Day One has been very vocal regarding the dangerous decline in grid reliability. Working together they just might put America on the path to restored reliability.
If the President wants to fix the grid FERC is the place to start. Stay tuned to CFACT.
Sounds like you need to be one of the people explaining all of this to Trump and his team.
I like to think they read WUWT and CFACT.
No. That is not the point. Donald Trump deals with people face to face. Always has. Look at today, he cut Zelensky/Ukraine off at the knees. Their scam don’t play anymore. Putin just had the ground go liquid under his feet. In all honesty y’all need to find a way to get in the room with him. Hand him facts, real statistics. He is a real-estate developer. That is what he has always dealt with. Put THAT in front of him.
Removing the perverse incentives that encourage utilities to drop written down thermal assets, and switch to wind would be a good move.
Agreed. The “perverse incentives” most often come from the state governments via law or regulation. There are a number of “zero by 50” laws still on the books. And it can be difficult to revoke them on the state level, witness California, New York, and oddly, Virginia, among others.
Unfortunately the big incentive is the more they spend the more profit they make. They are happy to replace depreciated coal fired plants with expensive wind and solar that they make a guaranteed profit on. Xcel pioneered this over a decade ago. They went big for wind so their dividend increased and their stock price went up 50% with huge management bonuses to follow. It is called rebuilding the asset base. Only now are they thinking a little bit about also keeping the lights on.
Accounting rules, and regulation of the utilities are government actions. While the utilities are partly at fault for not fighting these rules, short sightedness is rewarded by the stock market as well. I will blame the government more than the stock traders and accountants running the utilities.
Basically, every supply to the grid should be reliable, synchronous and dispatchable.
Day-ahead bidding for what you will be able to supply and at what price, and what extra you could make available in a pinch.
Penalties if you do not supply what you say you will.
I would go for month ahead bidding. If you could not not meet dispatch you get hit with a hefty penalty.
The crazy 5 minute bidding in Australia has become ridiculous.
Generators typically already enter into long contracts but not rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is paid very little.
Its not crazy to bid like that because spot prices are real and so is instantaneous demand. If you dont like 5 minute bidding, I’m sure you wont like the myriad contract types including swaps and options either.
Agreed. These are the market rules for all the regional transmission organizations (RTOs) in the US for all but wind and solar, they get a pass.
Spot on! In addition to the moratorium on intermittent generation connections to the grid, I would suggest a moratorium on planned retirements of all coal fired generating units. Operators would be encouraged to undertake projects that would extend the operational life of these units for a minimum of 15 years with the assurance that their operating permits would be guaranteed for that period of time. Further, funds from the so called, “Inflation Reduction Act”, would be repurposed as loans or tax credits to facilitate these life extension projects.
In the interim, a national energy policy would be created that would eventually replace coal fired and natural gas base load generation with the latest technology nuclear generation supplemented with CCTG / simple cycle gas turbines for load following and peaking. Non dispatchable generation would not be permitted.
NERC’s job is energy reliability, that means grid reliability. Every generating system applying to connect to the grid should be made to prove its reliability. By that I mean their ability to constantly feed the grid with the power the grid needs. Wind and solar can reliably serve the grid let us say 30 to 40 percent of the time sometimes. That equals zero reliability therefore wind and solar can not be connected to the grid, it is as simple as that.
And another would be requiring additional wind and/or solar to be accompanied by some appropriate level storage. If that makes it uneconomical then so be it.
In essence that would require both Wind and Solar to “Guarantee” a certain Wattage of uninterrupted generation on a 24 hour basis.
Almost certainly not 24 hours. There would be a calculation of what was actually required and a battery is very good for satisfying peak demand which is the most valuable energy during the day so its value is greater than it seems.
But any level of storage that makes it dispatchable is way better than nothing.
Battery may be acceptable for powering peak for a limited time BUT that Battery also needs to be recharged from Solar/Wind. Since Solar is only available at anywhere near Nameplate Capacity from 10am until 2pm and rapidly diminishes after 2pm until 4pm you need to be able to regenerate your MWh Battery Storage in just 4 hours so Sufficient Solar/Wind over build is required.
Likewise for Wind. Vast areas (even entire countries… Germany, France, UK, even Australia) can be wind less for weeks at a time in especially in Winter under Blocking High Situations.
Their Fuel might be free but you can’t simply add more when needed you only get what Weather and Time of Day may or may not provide.
Or you need to dramatically increase
Mining (Global)
Transportation
Shipping (to China)
Refining (China)
Processing (China)
Transportation
Manufacturing (China)
Transportation
Shipping (From China globally)
Transportation from port to storage
Transportation from storage to job site
And lets not forget both Wind and Solar are subject to the vagaries of weather, are easily destroyed in Bad Weather (strong winds or Hail) and would need replacement after most every major storm…especially Solar when exposed to Hail
A battery can only supply demand if it is adequately charged. To achieve that you would need a full, properly sized set of batteries kept fully charged at all times. Not being used for price arbitrage.
Being fully charged, they are then useless for storage. You would need another discharged set for storing surplus. Far too expensive.
Just adding batteries provides little benefit. They are not magical.
The point is that the wind and solar charges the battery and then the battery is used dispatchably at peak demand or when its needed. A well run setup would cycle most of its energy throughout a 24 hour period and be maximally useful. Right now wind and solar aren’t that.
Problem is, how do people utilize the wind and solar generation as needed while it is being produced IF/WHEN that same Wind and Solar is being utilized to recharge batteries?
The argument I made was that additional renewables for now have storage (eg batteries) associated and are not generally used to feed the grid, at least until the batteries are charged sufficiently.
Then the energy from those batteries is used when its needed which would typically be during peak demand.
The storage is used to level out supply which renewables are not good at.
So then you’re talking about Expensive Flamboyant Batteries being recharged by equally Expensive Dedicated Duplicated Renewable Overcapacity that goes unused once those Batteries are recharged until they’re depleted again.
No, its a balance. Once the batteries are sufficiently charged, there is no reason that the renewable energy could not go out onto the grid.
To put this into perspective, remember this whole thread is about having “too many” renewables on the grid such that the variability of supply becomes problematic.
By adding storage for any “new” renewables, not only does the problem go away for those “new” renewables, the storage goes towards making the grid more stable than it is today.
I should respond specifically to this….
Prices are highest when demand is highest and the batteries are needed the most.
Prices are highest when demand is highest and Solar is unavailable. You can’t add fuel to Solar at night.
But you can dispatch from the storage (eg battery) to cover that peak demand. Not the whole night, but we dont need to. Demand is much lower overnight.
Currently we can’t dispatch power from Moss Landing Battery Storage though, Those batteries are Fuel and Oxidizer combined in convenient carrying tubes that act like inflammatory statements if you look at them cross eyed
Perhaps it was embers from the Hazlewood coal mine fire that eventually floated by and caused the problem?
Sorry, embers won’t cause Concrete to ignite. The Batteries that originally Flambé’d were inside the old generation building. Embers didn’t start it, battery failure and subsequent thermal runaway did.
Over 80% of the batteries were destroyed and the entire facility might need to be replaced
Pretty bad, but nothing compared to say the Centralia fire. Coal mine fires are relatively common and devastating. Complaining about lithium battery fires is fine but compared to coal fires, they’re trivial.
Nah, that never happened.
Stop talking abject nonsense.
Oh, so you dont think it was embers from Australia, ten years earlier floating to California to start the fire? My bad, then.
And then you have the hazards of large batteries, as the fire at Moss Landing reminded us of.
Lithium batteries are environmental risks. When they burn, and boy oh boy do they burn, the pollutants and health and welfare and environmental risks are enormous.
EPA should ban mass battery storage until a safe (if even possible) technology is proven.
The simple fix is that generators supplying the grid need to offer dispatchable generation at a monthly bid price, If they fail to produce when dispatched then they get hit with heavy penalty.
Australia is down to 5 minute interval bidding all to suit the ups and down of intermittent generation. Scheduling generators has become enormously complex and smart bidders game the system to maximise profits.
The Australian grid is now more than duplicated in terms of installed capacity. The only generating source that comes close to achieving its unconstrained capacity factor is rooftop solar because it does not get any price signal. There is so much rooftop solar that it is a serious threat to grid stability. Rooftops have supplied in excess of 50% of the grid demand and are usually around 40% at lunchtime demand on most days in autumn and spring..
I read somewhere that most of the money spent in the US on new power generation in the last four years was spent on intermittent wind and solar. Not for reliable baseload and load-following coal and and/or gas-fired generation, and not for nuclear.
Another big question which we should hope would be coming up for a quick review by the US Supreme Court is the constitutionality of the President’s ability to impound funds authorized by the Congress.
If the Supreme Court rules that a president has the ability to impound funds the Congress has authorized, could President Trump back up his public statement that the Green New Deal is a scam by impounding the funds which are now flowing into direct wind and solar subsidies?
All of those funded programs have a clause that says depending on the availability of money (in the Treasury). This does not mandate borrowing (debt) as a funding source.
In the last four years it was difficult (if not impossible) to get a permit to build a fossil fueled power plant.
And BTW, many of the rules that made it so are still on the books. Biden’s EPA was busy in the latter months of his rule.
It seems to me that it is simply bad governance to replace a reliable source of energy generation and delivery unless the replacement as reliable or better.
I still think it will take a big grid crashing at a time when the weather is potentially deadly–the depths of winter or the heat domes of the summer. Then people will sit up and take notice. That includes the people who are supposedly in charge.
Especially if it is their grid that crashes
The insanity will continue until sufficient damage is inflicted.
There was a recent blackout in S. America, Chili, If I remember correctly. It may have been Venezuela. Cuba also has a raging blackout problem
The first time something like that hits the US, there will be torches and pitchforks aplenty.
Where exactly is “Chili”?
You call it “systemically intermittent”. Too kind in my view. I call it “totally incapable of responding to load demand”.