Energy organizations challenge the Department of Energy's reliability report on the power grid system
====================================================================
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has come under scrutiny from clean energy organisations, including Advanced Energy United, American Clean Power Association, and American Council on Renewable Energy (ACP, ACORE, and AEU). These groups have filed a formal rehearing request against the DOE’s resource adequacy document, claiming that it relies on flawed assumptions and overly simplistic modeling that favor fossil fuel generation.
The clean energy groups argue that the DOE’s report uses a deterministic approach that appears more like a fixed protocol than a rigorous, balanced analysis, potentially discouraging fossil power plant retirements regardless of evolving grid needs.
Key concerns from the clean energy groups include:
- The DOE’s load growth projections are higher than some credible estimates, particularly with about 50 GW of U.S. data center capacity assumed to be added from 2025 to 2030, which may overstate demand.
- The report’s modeling of reliability contributions from resource types like gas-fired power plants is unrealistic, failing to account for cascading failures caused by fuel-related disruptions such as pipeline outages or frozen fuel supplies during extreme weather events, such as Winter Storm Elliott in 2022.
- Grid operators like PJM have acknowledged the risk that fossil generators may not always be available during peak winter hours and have reduced their capacity accreditation accordingly, but the DOE report does not reflect these operational realities.
- The document discounts the known capabilities of grid operators and regulators to maintain reliability and resource adequacy over the near term, potentially leading to misguided policy decisions.
- Acting on the report could lead to higher grid operation costs and mandates to keep uneconomic fossil plants online, costing U.S. consumers an estimated $3.1 billion annually by 2028.
The clean energy trade groups fear that the report will be used to justify DOE interventions under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to keep aging fossil units running unnecessarily, undermining clean energy progress and efficient grid evolution.
Kent Chandler, former chairman of the Kentucky Public Service Commission and resident senior fellow at the R Street Institute, has criticized the report’s assumptions about load growth, net generation additions, and individual resources’ contributions to overall system reliability through 2030.
The proliferation of energy storage in utility-scale batteries and electric vehicles is a driving force in the transition to a cleaner, more distributed power system. However, the DOE report's survey of generator additions is incomplete, omitting resources like the 800-MW nuclear plant in Michigan.
In response to the rehearing request, the DOE has 30 days to respond. If they deny it, the organizations have 60 days to file a judicial appeal.
A utility rate case is a better-tailored tool to take all available solutions and costs into account, according to Marquis, rather than the DOE’s approach. The result of acting on the DOE report could be a grid that's more expensive to operate and maintain.
Read also:
- Solar Shutdown: Merz Proposes Billions of Gas Discharge - Reverse Plan
- New guidelines for NEPA processes unveiled by federal agencies, in alignment with Executive Order 14154 and the Seven County Decision of the Supreme Court
- Anticipated Rise in Electricity Bills Coming in July for Latvian Residents
- Solar worker faces potential job loss amid solar industry transition
