[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INNOVATION:
GRID RELIABILITY CHALLENGES IN A SHIFTING
ENERGY RESOURCE LANDSCAPE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 9, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-40
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-945 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas Islands
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Witnesses
Gary Sypolt, CEO, Dominion Energy, on behalf of Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America............................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
John Shelk, President and CEO, Electric Power Supply Association. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Answers to submitted questions............................... 144
Paul Cicio, President, Industrial Energy Consumers of America.... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Answers to submitted questions............................... 146
Daniel Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy,
Center for American Progress................................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Robert Gramlich, Interim CEO, American Wind Energy Association... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Answers to submitted questions............................... 157
Jonathan Lesser, President, Continental Economics, Inc........... 86
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Answers to submitted questions............................... 163
Submitted Material
Letter of May 8, 2013, from the Natural Gas Council to the
Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Whitfield....................... 137
Letter of May 9, 2013, from the American Public Power Association
to the Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Whitfield................ 139
AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INNOVATION: GRID RELIABILITY CHALLENGES IN
A SHIFTING ENERGY RESOURCE LANDSCAPE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Whitfield, Hall, Shimkus, Pitts,
Burgess, Latta, Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo,
Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush,
McNerney, Tonko, Green, Capps, Barrow, Christensen, Castor, and
Waxman (ex officio).
Staff Present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte
Baker, Press Secretary; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director;
Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Allison Busbee, Policy
Coordinator, Energy & Power; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy &
Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; Jason
Knox, Counsel, Energy & Power; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy
Counsel; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jeff Baran,
Minority Senior Counsel; Kristina Friedman, Minority EPA
Detailee; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. The hearing will come to order.
I certainly want to thank the panel of witnesses for being
with us today. All of you are experts in your field, and we
value your testimony, and certainly I will be introducing each
one of you individually as soon as we finish our opening
statements, but the hearing this morning is entitled ``American
Energy Security and Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in
a Shifting Energy Resource Landscape.''
Today's discussion builds on earlier hearings that address
the challenges posed by changes in the Nation's electricity
generation portfolio. The proportion of electricity we get from
coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric and non-hydro
renewables has remained relatively constant over the last
several decades. However, a shift is occurring, and what is
alarming is how fast the mix has changed during the past few
years. And it is this rapid transition that presents a number
of pressing concerns that must be addressed in order to ensure
a reliable and affordable electricity supply.
Most significantly, we are seeing a sharp drop in coal use
and its replacement with natural gas. Part of this is due to
market forces, namely the increased supply and relatively low
price of domestic natural gas, but also part is the result of
policy decisions made in Washington, particularly EPA's
regulatory bias against coal.
Policy decisions are also behind the increased use of
intermittent renewable resources, such as wind and solar power,
especially the generous federal tax breaks and subsidies that
favor them, as well as state level renewable electricity
mandates. There certainly is room for debate of the merits of
these policies and decisions and their impacts on electricity
consumers and the American economy.
I for one am opposed to EPA's regulatory onslaught and will
continue to oppose anti-coal rules because, like the President,
I agree that we need all of the above, even though I think he
wants to omit coal. But the point of this hearing is that these
changes to the generation mix are occurring, and it is
important that we think through what must be done to ensure
that the lights stay on and that electric bills are affordable
in the years ahead.
For example, the increased use of natural gas to provide
electricity cannot go smoothly unless we have the pipeline
capacity to carry it from where it is produced to the many new
natural gas-fired power plants that are being built. We will
need new natural gas pipelines as well as storage facilities to
be constructed. However, we don't have a lot of time to build
them, given the reliability challenges we face today, and we
have already witnessed this scenario in areas like New England.
In addition, the federal-state policies that have given a
boost to intermittent power sources could easily backfire if we
don't address the difficulties of integrating these
intermittent sources into the electric grid and the additional
cost that that requires. Homeowners and businesses need
electricity, whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is
blowing, and the supply at any moment must meet the demand.
This is nearly impossible to do with intermittent renewables
that are not readily and reliably available.
I might also add that the long-term subsidization of
certain generation sources, such as wind, can impair
reliability and drive up electricity prices and increase
integration costs. The wind PTPC was extended the end of last
year, much to the disappointment of many of us. That extension
alone is expected to cost over $12 billion over the next 10
years. And then, as many of you know, in January, EPA even made
a decision in a ruling to exempt from the Clean Air Act
emissions from generators that are used to back up wind power,
and I recall that when we had our three forums on the Clean Air
Act, many people said, well, you are out to destroy the Clean
Air Act. We were not exempting anything from the Clean Air Act.
We were simply having discussions with local regulators of the
impact of the Clean Air Act and yet here EPA is exempting from
the Clean Air Act backup generators for the wind--wind power.
The electric sector is changing, but one thing that remains
constant is that homeowners, small business owners,
manufacturers and others need reliable and affordable
electricity. If we are going to be competitive in the global
marketplace, we must do everything possible to ensure
affordable and abundant electricity.
With that, at this time, I would like to recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
This hearing is entitled ``American Energy Security and
Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting Energy
Resource Landscape.'' Today's discussion builds on earlier
hearings that addressed the challenges posed by changes in the
nation's electricity generation portfolio.
The proportion of electricity we get from coal, natural
gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and non-hydro renewables has
remained relatively constant over the last several decades.
However, a shift is occurring and what is alarming is how fast
the mix has changed during the past few years. And it is this
rapid transition that presents a number of pressing concerns
that must be addressed in order to ensure a reliable and
affordable electricity supply.
Most significantly, we are seeing a sharp drop in coal use
and its replacement with natural gas. Part of this is due to
market forces, namely the increased supply and relatively low
price of domestic natural gas. But part is also the result of
policy decisions made in Washington, particularly EPA's
regulatory attack on coal.
Policy decisions are also behind the increase in
intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar power,
especially the generous federal tax breaks and subsidies that
favor them as well as state-level renewable electricity
mandates.
There certainly is room for debate over the merits of these
policy decisions and their impacts on electricity consumers and
the American economy. I for one strongly oppose EPA's
regulatory onslaught and will continue to fight against these
anti-coal rules. But the point of this hearing is that these
changes to the generation mix are occurring, and it is
important that we think through what must be done to ensure
that the lights stay on and that electric bills are affordable
in the years ahead.
For example, the increased use of natural gas to produce
electricity cannot go smoothly unless we have the pipeline
capacity to carry it from where it is produced to the many new
natural gas-fired power plants that are being built. We will
need new natural gas pipelines as well as storage facilities to
be constructed. However, we don't have a lot of time to build
them given the reliability challenges we face today and we have
already witnessed this scenario in areas like New England. And
I might add that although Keystone XL is an oil pipeline and
not directly relevant to this discussion about electricity, the
fact that Keystone XL has been delayed for over four years by
this administration is a warning sign that this administration
is no friend of building new pipeline infrastructure to
transport fossil energy.
In addition, the federal and state policies that have given
a boost to wind and solar power could easily backfire if we
don't address the difficulties of integrating these
intermittent sources into the electric grid.
Homeowners and businesses need electricity whether or not
the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and the supply at
any moment must match the demand. This is nearly impossible to
do with intermittent renewables that are not readily available.
I might also add that the long-term subsidization of
certain generation sources, such as wind, can impair
reliability and drive up electricity prices. The Wind PTC was
extended at the end of last year much to the disappointment of
many of us. That extension alone is expected to cost over $12
Billion dollars over the next 10 years. To put that in
perspective, $12 billion is more than 10% of the entire $90
billion dollar sequester. In fact, $12 billion is six times
more than the cost of the president's own proposal to create a
$2 billion dollar Advanced Energy Trust Fund over the next
decade. And what will the American taxpayer receive in return
for subsidizing the wind industry for another 10 years? More
expensive and less reliable energy.
The electric sector is changing, but one thing that remains
constant is that homeowners, small business owners,
manufacturers and others still need reliable and affordable
electricity. I look forward to learning from our witnesses as
to how best to accommodate the changes that are underway.
# # #
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing on, ``Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting
Energy Resource Landscape.'' Mr. Chairman, my question is, can
we just come up with an acronym for all these words, this long
title?
As the title of this hearing suggests, the country is
indeed in a period of transition in an area of electricity
generation away from some of the older, dirtier carbon-
intensive coal-fired power plants and towards a heavy reliance
on natural gas and renewable source of energy, including wind
and solar and hydropower to generate electricity.
Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, coal accounted for over 50
percent of all power generation in this Nation while natural
gas was responsible for less than 15 percent of electric
generation. Today, Iowa, due to a combination of technological
advancement in producing renewable energy, State and Federal
incentives, environmental policies and market-based realities,
the U.S. power supply is much more diversified with 37 percent
of electricity generation coming from coal, 30 percent coming
from natural gas, 19 percent from nuclear and 12 percent from
renewable sources, including hydropower.
Mr. Chairman, this diversification of the Nation's power
supply is a sign of the times as we move toward the 21st
Century model, which does not rely too heavily on any single
carbon-intensive energy source. Instead, by moving forward and
diversifying our electric power supply to include more natural
gas and clear renewable forms of energy, the U.S. is leading
all advanced nations in decreasing our carbon emissions while
also providing the energy necessary to provide for the needs of
the American consumers and America's businesses.
According to the EIA in 2012, U.S. energy-related
combustion emissions declined 3.7 percent to 1994 levels as a
result of slow economic growth, the accelerating use of
renewable energy sources and the transition from coal to
natural gas. So, Mr. Chairman, while this reduction in carbon
emissions is commendable, there is still a whole lot more that
we have to do, more work that needs to be done. U.S. energy
related carbon emissions is currently 5 percent above 1990
levels, and without additional policies, the EIA predicts that
carbon pollution will continue to grow by 7.5 percent between
2012 and 2040.
President Obama has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 17
percent between 2005 levels--below 2005 levels by 2020 in order
to help combat the devastating effect of climate change that we
have been experiencing much too frequently. And in order to do
so, we must continue to integrate renewable forms of energy
into the electric power supply. Of course, as we continue to
integrate renewable sources of anything into the power grid,
natural gas will play a larger role in helping to avoid
possible reliability issues.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we must encourage and promote
the development of advanced technologies and best practices to
help integrate renewable energy sources into the grid while
maintaining reliability. We must ensure that FERC has the tools
and the capability to remove barriers to integration.
Mr. Chairman, order 764 IRERs, which is the Integration of
Reliable Energy Resources, which was finalized in June of 2012,
is a clear example of FERC's ability to integrate renewable
power into the grid while also helping to ensure that American
families and American businesses have access to reliable and
affordable energy.
Mr. Chairman, we must continue on this path of diversifying
our Nation's power supply with cleaner, renewable sources of
energy and while also making sure that FERC can and that the
relevant agencies can and have the authority and the
capabilities to keep America's lights on.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time has expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Upton, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, good morning. Today we are going to
examine two key emerging issues facing the reliability of the
Nation's electric grid, gas and electric convergence challenges
and the integration of intermittent renewable energy resources.
As we have witnessed over the last couple of years, the
Nation's electric generation portfolio is undergoing a dramatic
shift, in part spurred by abundant and low-cost natural gas but
also driven by environmental regs from the EPA that are forcing
thousands of megawatts of coal-fired base load power to retire.
This committee is dedicated to ensure the continued
availability of affordable and reliable power to American homes
and businesses, all the while protecting jobs in this rapidly
changing energy landscape.
The shale gas revolution that we are witnessing today
clearly presents enormous economic benefits for the country,
and it is going to be an important driver of our economic
growth moving forward. It is also going to set a path toward a
better future for all of us, providing benefits across numerous
sectors from manufacturing, residential to commercial uses.
Generating more electric power from natural gas has many
benefits as well, especially given that domestic supplies are
increasing and current prices are relatively low, but we are
learning that there are also some real challenges to
integrating more natural gas in the power sector.
Today's hearing also will focus on the increased
integration of intermittent renewable resources, such as wind
and solar, into the electric grid. As I have said on many
times, many occasions, I support an open, all of the above,
energy strategy, which includes renewable energy resources.
However, we have got to be careful with regard to the cost of
these resources and the taxpayer dollars that continue to
subsidize them. We must also be mindful of the fact that
incorporating an increased amount of renewables into the
electric system presents operational challenges that in fact
may impair with reliability. These resources are intermittent
by their nature. The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun
doesn't always shine. Clearly, there is a role that these
resources can play and should play, but to suggest that these
sources alone can meet the power demands of the manufacturing
technology and consumer sectors of the U.S. economy is a
stretch of the imagination. Absent the continued use of our
reliable and consistent base load power workhorses, like coal,
nuclear, natural gas, the U.S. will not be able to compete
globally.
America's newfound abundance of natural gas is a blessing,
as are technological advances that make renewables more cost
competitive and reliable. Both of these resources should and
will play an important role in contributing to our energy
needs, but we have got to take steps to properly and cost
effectively integrate those resources into the energy and
electric portfolio.
I look for forward to today's testimony, welcome our
witnesses and would yield to other members on the Republican
side. Seeing none, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today we examine two key emerging issues facing the
reliability of the nation's electric grid--gas and electric
convergence challenges and the integration of intermittent
renewable energy resources.
As we have witnessed over just the last few years, the
nation's electric generation portfolio is undergoing a dramatic
shift, in part spurred by abundant and low cost natural gas,
but also driven by environmental regulations from the EPA that
are forcing thousands of megawatts of coal-fired baseload power
to retire. This committee is dedicated to ensuring the
continued availability of affordable and reliable power to
American homes and businesses, all the while protecting jobs in
this rapidly changing energy landscape.
The shale gas revolution we are witnessing clearly presents
enormous economic benefits for the country that will be an
important driver of our economic growth moving forward. It will
set a path toward a better future for all of us, providing
benefits across numerous sectors from manufacturing,
residential, to commercial uses.
Generating more electric power from natural gas has many
benefits as well, especially given that domestic supplies are
increasing and current prices are relatively low. But we are
learning that there are also some very real challenges to
integrating more natural gas into the power sector.
Today's hearing also will focus on the increased
integration of intermittent renewable resources, such as wind
and solar, into the electric grid. As I have made clear on
numerous occasions, I support an open, all-of-the-above energy
strategy, which includes renewable energy resources. However,
we must be mindful of the cost of these resources and the
taxpayer dollars that continue to subsidize them.
We must also be mindful of the fact that incorporating an
increasing amount of renewables into the electric system
presents operational challenges that may impair grid
reliability. These resources are intermittent by their nature--
the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.
Clearly there is a role these resources can play but to suggest
these sources alone can meet the power demands of the
manufacturing, technology, and consumer sectors of the U.S.
economy is a stretch of the imagination. Absent the continued
use of our reliable and consistent baseload power work horses
like coal, nuclear, and natural gas, the U.S. will not be able
compete globally.
America's newfound abundance of natural gas is a blessing,
as are technological advancements that make renewables more
cost competitive and reliable. Both of these resources should--
and will--play an important role in contributing to our energy
needs. But we need to take steps to properly and cost-
effectively integrate these resources into the electricity
portfolio. I look forward to today's testimony, and learning
about the best ideas for moving forward.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back.
At this time, recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Waxman, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, the subcommittee is holding its third hearing on
America's evolving electricity generation portfolio, and there
is no question that a significant transition is under way.
Renewable energy policies are paying off. We have doubled
our capacity to generate renewable electricity from wind and
solar in just 4 years. Cheap natural gas is also helping to
transform our electricity sector. This market reality is
causing some utilities to replace their oldest, dirtiest and
least efficient coal plants with natural gas generation.
These are positive developments, but these changes also
create challenges for our electric grid. The testimony from the
prior hearings showed that these issues are manageable and that
both regulators and grid operators are focused on them. Yet
there has been no focus from the Republican Members on the
bigger challenges posed by climate change, and while they are
ignoring climate change, they seem to bemoan the transition
that is occurring. While they call for a market based economy,
they don't seem to like the fact that the market economy is
driving natural gas to replace coal. They seem to want to use
coal no matter what. Don't let the market decide it; let's let
the coal people decide it. They offer no solutions, no ideas
for cutting carbon pollution or deploying more clean energy
generation. Instead, the only thing that seems to unite them is
attacking EPA. They attack EPA's air quality standards and
lament the loss of coal's market share.
There is a confused aspect to these hearings. Some
Republican Members cannot seem to decide whether they like
cheap natural gas or see it as a threat that must be overcome
to protect the coal industry. They seem unsure whether they
should be celebrating reduced carbon pollution or avoiding the
issue all together. This confusion is not surprising because
the subcommittee still hasn't examined why this transition in
our energy sector must occur.
Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face as a
country. We can't have a meaningful discussion of the
transition under way in the energy sector without understanding
the threat of climate change. We have heard a lot lately about
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions being at their lowest level in 20
years. The implication is no further action to address climate
change is necessary, and that is simply not the case.
As a result of increased renewable energy generation, a
shift from coal to natural gas generation and the economic
recession, U.S. emissions from the energy sector have dropped
in recent years, but U.S.--total U.S. emissions from all
sources, not just the power sector, actually increased from
2009 to 2011. What matters most is whether U.S. emissions are
on track to decline in the future by the amount needed to
prevent dangerous climate change. No reputable expert believes
this to be the case.
Scientists tell us that our emissions need to decline by at
least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2015 to avoid a dangerous
level of warming. The latest projections by the Energy
Information Administration show that U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuel combustion actually will be 13
percent higher than 19 levels in 2040, the last year of the
EIA's model. There is an enormous gulf between what these
emissions will be without additional action and what they need
to be to avert catastrophic warming.
Today's hearing continues this unfortunate and
counterproductive trend. The majority appears to have called
this hearing, in part, to invite attacks on renewable energy.
If we are going to hear from opponents of renewable energy and
critics of EPA's proposed standards to reduce carbon pollution
from new power plants, we should hear from the scientists and
technical experts who can explain why it is so important for
the United States to reduce its carbon pollution. We should
hear from witnesses who can inform the subcommittee about the
dangers of manmade climate change and the closing window for
effective action. The threat of climate change is not going to
disappear if we pretend it doesn't exist. We need to start
recognizing reality and crafting responsible solutions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman
Today, the Subcommittee is holding its third hearing on
America's evolving electricity generation portfolio. There is
no question that a significant transition is underway.
Renewable energy policies are paying off. We have doubled
our capacity to generate renewable electricity from wind and
solar in just four years.
Cheap natural gas is also helping to transform our
electricity sector. This market reality is causing some
utilities to replace their oldest, dirtiest, and least
efficient coal plants with natural gas generation.
These are positive developments. But these changes also
create challenges for our electric grid. The testimony from the
prior hearings showed that these issues are manageable and that
both regulators and grid operators are focused on them.
Yet there has been no focus from the Republican members on
the bigger challenges posed by climate change. They offer no
solutions . no ideas for cutting carbon pollution or deploying
more clean energy generation. Instead, they attack EPA's air
quality standards and lament the loss of coal's market share.
There is a confused aspect to these hearings. Some
Republican members cannot seem to decide whether they like
cheap natural gas or see it as a threat that must be overcome
to protect the coal industry. They seem unsure whether they
should be celebrating reduced carbon pollution or avoiding the
issue all together.
This confusion is not surprising because the Subcommittee
still hasn't examined why this transition in our energy sector
must occur. Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we
face as a country. We can't have a meaningful discussion of the
transition underway in the energy sector without understanding
the threat of climate change.
We have heard a lot lately about U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions being at their lowest level in twenty years. The
implication is that no further action to address climate change
is necessary. That is simply not the case.
As a result of increased renewable energy generation, a
shift from coal to natural gas generation, and the economic
recession, U.S. emissions from the energy sector have dropped
in recent years. But total U.S. emissions from all sources--not
just the power sector--actually increased from 2009 to 2011.
What matters most is whether U.S. emissions are on track to
decline in the future by the amount needed to prevent dangerous
climate change. No reputable expert believes this to be the
case.
Scientists tell us that our emissions need to decline by at
least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid a dangerous level
of warming. The latest projections by the Energy Information
Administration show that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuel combustion actually will be 13% higher than 1990
levels in 2040, the last year in EIA's model. There is an
enormous gulf between what these emissions will be without
additional action and what they need to be to avert
catastrophic warming.
Today's hearing continues this unfortunate and
counterproductive trend. The majority appears to have called
this hearing, in part, to invite attacks on renewable energy.
If we're going to hear from opponents of renewable energy and
critics of EPA's proposed standard to reduce carbon pollution
from new power plants, we should hear from the scientists and
technical experts who can explain why it is so important for
the United States to reduce its carbon pollution. We should
hear from witnesses who can inform the Subcommittee about the
dangers of man-made climate change and the closing window for
effective action.
The threat of climate change is not going to disappear if
we pretend it doesn't exist. We need to start recognizing
reality and crafting responsible solutions.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman yields back. At this time, I would
like to introduce the members of the panel, and as I said in
the beginning, we genuinely appreciate all of you being here,
and we certainly value your input and thought on these
important issues.
STATEMENTS OF GARY SYPOLT, CEO, DOMINION ENERGY, ON BEHALF OF
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JOHN SHELK,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION; PAUL
CICIO, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS OF AMERICA;
DANIEL WEISS, SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE STRATEGY,
CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS; ROBERT GRAMLICH, INTERIM CEO,
AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION; AND JONATHAN LESSER,
PRESIDENT, CONTINENTAL ECONOMICS, INC.
Mr. Whitfield. First, we have Mr. Gary Sypolt, who is the
CEO of Dominion Energy, who is going to be testifying on behalf
of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
We have Mr. John Shelk, who used to be a part of the Energy
and Commerce Committee. I was going to say many, many years
ago, but it wasn't that many years ago.
Mr. Shelk. Lincoln was the----
Mr. Whitfield. And John is the president and CEO of
Electric Power Supply Association.
We have Mr. Paul Cicio, who is the president of the
Industrial Energy Consumers of America. We have Mr. Daniel
Weiss, who has testified here before, and he is the senior
fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for
American Progress.
We have in Robert Gramlich, who is the interim CEO of the
American Wind Energy Association.
And we have Dr. Jonathan Lesser, who is the president of
Continental Economics, Incorporated.
So, once again, welcome to all of you. We look forward to
your testimony. I will be recognizing each one of you and you
will be given 5 minutes for an opening statement, and then, at
the end, at the conclusion of that, we will have questions and
answers.
So, Mr. Sypolt, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GARY SYPOLT
Mr. Sypolt. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush,
members of the subcommittee, good morning. My name is Gary
Sypolt. I am CEO of Dominion Energy. Headquartered in Richmond,
Virginia, Dominion operates a broad portfolio of energy assets,
including electric generation and transmission, natural gas
transmission, storage and distribution. Dominion Energy, the
segment of the company that I oversee, is focused on our
natural gas assets.
Today I am testifying on behalf of the Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America or INGAA. INGAA represents
interstate pipeline, natural gas transmission pipeline
operators in the U.S. and Canada. I am a member of the INGAA
board and the chair of the board's task force on gas electric
power reliability.
You are all aware of the shale gas revolution, the new
opportunities that it has created for the U.S. economy and the
rapid changes that have occurred as a result.
One of the principal areas in which this has occurred is in
the use of natural gas as a fuel for electric power generation.
There is no question that natural gas and natural gas pipelines
can serve gas-fired electric power generators reliably.
Questions about whether and to what extent natural gas is used
to generate electricity will be resolved by the generators and
by policymakers. If natural gas continues to be chosen as a
fuel prepared generation, though, the pipeline industry is
confident that it can reliably meet the needs of power
customers, assuming that such customers contract for the
appropriate level of pipeline services.
Concerns about natural gas electric power reliability vary
by region and depend on several factors referenced by my
written testimony. New England has attracted the greatest
concern in recent years, but it is not the only region where
this concern has been raised by grid operators and other
stakeholders. The problem in New England is that wholesale
electric market rules do not allow generators to recover the
cost associated with ensuring electric reliability, and
electric prices do not reflect these reliability costs.
While generators in New England are acting rationally based
on current market rules, the end result may be a reduction in
electric reliability and a greater risk of blackouts that could
be very costly to the region.
The good news is that the interstate natural gas pipeline
industry has a proven track record for building infrastructure
in response to market demand. In my written testimony, you can
see a map of the 12,000 miles of new pipelines placed in
service over the last decade. If the market provides timely
signals that it needs additional capacity, that is, in the form
of firm contractual commitments for that capacity, the industry
can add new pipeline capacity in a market responsive manner.
The key point here, pipelines are designed to meet the
needs of shippers with firm contracts. Unlike electric
utilities, pipelines typically are designed with little or no
excess capacity. In other words, there is no reserve margin.
This is why firm contracts for pipeline service are critical,
and in fact, the FERC looks at a firm contractual commitment in
deciding whether to approve a new pipeline in the first place;
in other words, whether the pipeline meets the public
convenience and necessity.
Restructuring of wholesale natural gas markets has been a
remarkable success. As demonstrated by the robust pipeline
expansion over the last decade, the natural gas model works.
This success should not be undermined as policymakers examine
how to achieve greater natural gas and electric power market
coordination. Electric market rules must be reformed to value
investments in reliability and to ensure the ability to recover
such costs from those who benefit from reliable electricity.
With such arrangements, necessary natural gas infrastructure
can and will be built. Without such arrangements, the gas side
risk, degradation of the quality of service for natural gas
utilities and traditional gas pipeline customers who pay for
reliable service, while on the electric side, there would be a
greater risk if parts of the nation would experience more
volatile power prices and increasing potential for blackouts.
Let me thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today, and I will be happy to answer questions at the
appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sypolt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.012
Mr. Whitfield. Thanks, Mr. Sypolt.
Mr. Shelk, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SHELK
Mr. Shelk. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield,
Ranking Member Rush and members of the subcommittee. As a
former committee counsel, it is a particular honor to be back
today. As noted, I am here on behalf of the Electric Power
Supply Association. EPSA is the national trade association for
competitive wholesale electricity suppliers. Our members supply
electricity across the country with a particular emphasis on
states and regions with independent grid operators. This means
their major sources of electricity from Maine down here to
Virginia and states across from the Mid-Atlantic to my home
State of Illinois, and particularly in Texas and California.
The subcommittee is wise to focus on the challenges already
discussed. Today's headlines focus on natural gas, but we
should also be asking ourselves, what will be the headlines of
tomorrow? What will be the game changers next year or over the
next decade? EPSA believes that competitive electricity markets
are best able to adapt to these changes, and our written
testimony focuses on three particular challenges that I will
summarize now: electric-gas coordination; a new topic that
Chairman Whitfield referred to called demand response; and
finally, variable resources.
First on electric gas coordination, I think it is important
to point out that gas-fired generators already have as much
interest and financial incentive as anyone in making sure gas
could be delivered to their power plants to generate
electricity. This is because, in competitive markets such as
New England and Texas and elsewhere, these plants do not earn
revenue from generating electricity unless they can get gas to
run. They do not have a regulated rate base.
The important message we would leave with you is that today
and going forward, these plants procure fuel many ways, only
one of which is through a firm long-term transportation
arrangement that the pipelines just referred to. Instead, power
plants today serve consumers of electricity reliably as well as
cost effectively many other options: packaged products from
producers and gas marketers with packages that include both the
gas supply and the transportation, interruptible service,
capacity release, and delivery from gas distribution utilities.
These generators need continued access to this full suite of
options to tailor their gas supply arrangements to the type of
plant, location and market being served. These options
generally work well, as evidenced by the substantial increased
utilization of gas-fired power plants that many of you have
already referred to.
We are in agreement with INGAA that electric gas issues
vary by region, and regional solutions are best. And FERC is
acting accordingly. FERC and grid operators are vigilant, as
you heard at the hearing last month. New England is
appropriately seen as the region with the most pressing
challenges, and our regional trade association there is co-
chairing the regional effort, looking at these issues in depth.
FERC recently acted to improve the scheduling times for gas
and electricity, which will help, and active consideration is
being given at the state level to possibly encouraging gas
utilities to procure more firm pipeline capacity, but the
regional market is also looking to actively consider changes to
electric market rules.
The second topic I would like to mention is one not often
considered here but should be, and that is called demand
response. Demand Response entails programs in which most energy
consumers, particularly residential and commercial customers,
pay others, primarily industrial customers, for them to use
less electricity. In what is called order 745, FERC went beyond
its authority, in our view and the view of the other national
electricity associations, to pay this demand response as if it
were generation, and we and those other associations are
presently in the Federal court here in the District of Columbia
and the Court of Appeals challenging that order.
No amount of demand response can substitute for the
substantial supplies of actual megawatts from real power plants
of all kinds needed to continue to serve consumers reliably.
This year, as Chairman Whitfield mentioned, EPA issued a rule
exempting behind-the-meter diesel generators from Clean Air Act
requirements applicable to other generators. This allows owners
of these unregulated diesel generators to link up as virtual
power plants to merely shift, not actually reduce their demand,
and still get paid by other consumers as demand response.
This diverts consumer dollars away from cleaner generation.
This has also been flagged as a reliability concern and PJM by
the independent market monitor. Demand response subsidies and
policies deserve greater scrutiny as, at present, they
adversely impact every supply option, gas, coal, nuclear and
renewables.
And on the third challenge in terms of intermittent
resources, the point we would leave with you is really twofold.
One is that the larger regional markets that we favor because
they are larger, can handle the intermittent resources better,
and the natural gas-fired power plants that are needed to back
up these intermittent resources need to be properly
compensated.
And with that, I thank you for the opportunity to be here,
and we look forward to the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelk follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.026
Mr. Whitfield. Thanks very much.
And Mr. Cicio, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL CICIO
Mr. Cicio. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rush,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here. My name is Paul Cicio, and I am the president of the
Industrial Energy Consumers of America. IECA is a trade
association. Our manufacturing companies have revenues of $1.3
trillion, over 1,500 major manufacturing facilities across the
United States, and we employ some 1.7 million people.
IECA companies are mostly energy intensive trade exposed
industries. This means that they are substantial consumers of
natural gas and electricity and that relatively small changes
in the price of energy can have a significant impact on
competitiveness and jobs. The industrial sector uses about one-
third of the U.S. natural gas and one-third of the U.S.
electricity.
The key message of this testimony to Congress is that
consumers are not being served by a combination of actions and
inactions by policymakers, all of which potentially threaten
electric and natural gas reliability.
Because the electric reliability is dependent upon natural
gas pipeline capacity reliability and that no federal agency
apparently has responsibility for oversight of natural gas
pipeline reliability means, in general, that no one in
Washington is in charge of reliability. The U.S. cannot have
electric reliability without having natural gas pipeline
reliability.
Everyone is aware of the northeast corridor pipeline
constraints and how it increased prices. Thankfully,
policymakers are working to resolve the problem.
What IECA is worried about is what we do not know about the
pipeline constraints in other parts of the country. The
question that keeps us up at night is, given the momentous
market changes under way over the next 4 years, at peak natural
gas demand periods like very hot summer days or very cold
winter nights, will there be adequate natural gas pipeline
capacity for all natural gas consumers?
While the North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
NERC, has responsibility for overseeing electric reliability
and appears to be doing a good job, there is no such
organization for overseeing natural gas pipeline capacity
reliability. FERC has authority over most aspects of natural
gas pipelines but not reliability. Their view--they view
reliability as responsibility of the market. The decision to
build a pipeline is a market decision, not a regulatory
decision, and we agree with that premise.
While the premise of a pipeline decision to build or not
build has not changed and shouldn't change, the market it
serves has changed profoundly in several complicated ways that
greatly increased the potential for reliability problems that
never existed before, all at the same time and over a
compressed period of time. And we must be mindful that
potential solutions in this arena are capital intensive and
where timely environmental permitting is a huge obstacle to
speed. These facts make a compelling case for what oversight
and studies evaluating reliability at future peak demands are
necessary to prevent future reliability problems.
In contrast, for electric reliability, NERC is doing
studies to encompass the country to evaluate and provide vital
information that supports pre-emptive action by policymakers
and markets to guard against electric reliability problems.
The recent study completed by the Midwest Independent
System Operator, MISO, clearly demonstrates the need for
greater oversight and study. The MISO study concluded, in the
short term, more than 65 percent of the pipelines currently
supplying gas to 13 Midwest states has insufficient capacity to
fully meet its needs from existing generating units. For the
period 2016 to 2030, almost 90 percent of the pipelines have
insufficient capacity. The results of this study should have
served as a red flag to policymakers, but it apparently has not
had quite the effect that we would like.
Lastly, how FERC and the regional markets respond to these
challenges may result in consideration of policy changes that
could be of concern to the industrial sector. For example, a
FERC policy that gives certain rights and priorities to
electric generators for access to natural gas pipeline capacity
may provide potential solutions to electric generation
reliability but creates reliability and cost problems for
manufacturers.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, reliability is an important
safety and cost issue. Policymakers should not wait until there
are rolling brownouts or blackouts to provide oversight of
natural gas pipeline capacity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cicio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.033
Mr. Whitfield. Thanks very much.
Mr. Weiss, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL WEISS
Mr. Weiss. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on American energy security and innovation. Discussing
electricity security while ignoring climate change is like
discussing personal health while ignoring smoking, diet and
exercise. We must acknowledge that our electricity generation
system produces much of the carbon pollution responsible for
climate change and that the effects of climate change impair
electricity reliability. These threats include extreme weather
events, storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and wild fires.
The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2012 that,
quote, ``power delivery systems are most vulnerable to storms
and extreme weather events,'' unquote. Such events also
threaten American lives, the economy and taxpayers. The 25 most
severe extreme weather events in 2011 and 2012 caused 1,100
fatalities and $188 billion in damages.
A Center for American Progress analysis found that federal
natural disaster relief recovery efforts cost taxpayers $136
billion in fiscal years 2011 through 2013, or 400 hours per
household annually, and the National Climate Assessment Draft
warns us that we can expect more extreme and severe weather in
the future.
Extreme weather interferes with electricity generation. The
severe 2012 drought interrupted power production in many states
by shrinking the amount of cooling water available for power
plants. The drought also disrupted oil and natural gas
production. Superstorm Sandy and other severe storms also
disrupted electricity service by downing power lines and
damaging facilities. We urge the subcommittee to support
policies to achieve a more secure, reliable electricity system
by accomplishing the following three goals.
First, Congress must slow climate change by reducing carbon
pollution from power plants, the largest uncontrolled source of
emissions. Failing that, EPA must comply with the Supreme Court
by setting such standards under the Clean Air Act. American
Electric Power, Xcel and Entergy all testified before this
subcommittee earlier this year in favor of legislation to
address climate change.
Second, continue to provide financial incentives for energy
efficiency and renewable electricity technologies, which would
reduce reliance on the polluting fossil fuels responsible for
climate change, pay for them by adding tax breaks for big oil
companies because they have received the most federal support
over time. The Nuclear Energy Institute in a 2011 study found
that over the past 60 years, 70 percent of federal energy
spending went to fossil fuels while only 10 percent went for
renewables. In addition, in 2013, the North America Reliability
Corporation found that, quote, ``no significant reliability
challenges that intermittent electricity exists.''
And third, reduce the vulnerability of the electricity
infrastructure to extreme storms, drought, sea level rise and
other impacts of climate change. Investments in resiliency to
extreme weather save money. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency estimates that, quote, ``a dollar spent on pre-disaster
mitigation saves society an average of $4 in lower damages.''
Yet even as extreme weather increases, the federal
government is investing less in community resilience.
Representative Lois Capps and 39 colleagues have urged that the
federal government undertake a resilience plan that, first,
determines the financial support necessary to help communities
prepare for future extreme weather events and creates a
dependable revenue stream to provide additional resources for
these community resilience programs.
In addition, the Congressional Research Service recommends
more investment in smart grid and transmission repairs to
improve electricity reliability. The growing harm from climate
change requires a prompt transition from dirty to cleaner
electricity generation, which is begun both here and abroad.
For instance, Iowa generates 20 percent of its electricity from
wind. Six years after a devastating tornado, Greensburg, Kansas
is, quote, ``100 percent renewable energy 100 percent of the
time,'' unquote. Germany generated one quarter of its
electricity from renewable sources over six months in 2012, so
it can be done.
Congress must adopt policies that speed this transition
while helping our electricity system become more resilient to
damages from climate related storms, floods, drought and other
extreme weather. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weiss follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.060
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Weiss.
And Mr. Gramlich, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GRAMLICH
Mr. Gramlich. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
Rush and subcommittee members. It is a pleasure to be here
today on behalf of America's wind industry. The American Wind
Energy Association represents over 1,200 member companies,
including project developers, manufacturers and service
providers. Wind energy production has grown dramatically in
recent years, lowering energy costs for consumers while keeping
the grid reliable.
Over the past 5 years, wind energy has accounted for more
than 35 percent of all new electric generating capacity in the
U.S. Last year alone, $25 billion in private investment went
into building new U.S. wind projects, providing 80,000 American
jobs. The wind industry now has 550 manufacturing facilities in
44 states and wind projects in 39 states and Puerto Rico.
Nearly 70 percent of the content used in U.S. wind turbines is
produced here in America now, up from 25 percent just a few
years ago.
Last year, wind energy reliably provided more than 20
percent of the electricity in Iowa and South Dakota, and more
than 10 percent of the electricity in nine states. At times,
wind energy has reliably provided more than 55 percent of the
electricity on the main utility system in Colorado and 35
percent on the main grid in Texas.
Dozens of studies by independent grid operators and
utilities have examined wind energy's impact on electric
reliability and all have concluded that our use of wind energy
can increase many times over without any negative impacts on
reliability.
Since the days of Thomas Edison, grid operators have had to
constantly adjust the output of power plants to respond to
fluctuations in electricity demand and the sudden failures of
large conventional power plants. All energy sources
underperform from time to time and no power plant operates
predictably 100 percent of the time. The lights stay on because
all power plants have always backed up--been backed up by all
other power plants. Wind energy follows the same market rules
as other resources, pays for any costs it causes and only gets
paid for the services it provides.
Compared to wind energy, changes in electricity demand and
failures at conventional power plants are far larger
contributors to grid variability and the need for the flexible
reserves or backup that grid operators use to keep supply and
demand in balance. Grid operators that use efficient practices
have found that they can reliably add large amounts of wind
energy with virtually zero need for backup power beyond what is
already needed.
Even if power--even if additional reserves are needed, it
is much cheaper to accommodate the slow and predictable
variations in wind output than the instantaneous loss of
conventional power plants that can occur at any time. Data from
the Texas grid operator indicates that the additional cost of
reserves for obtaining almost 10 percent of its electricity
from wind energy accounts for about 6 cents out of a typical
household's $140 monthly electric bill. A study by utilities in
Nebraska that the whole region reliably obtained 40 percent of
its electricity from wind energy at an additional reserves cost
of around 80 cents per monthly bill. In contrast, data
indicates that the cost of reliably accommodating instantaneous
outages at other power plants is 40 times higher, at around
$2.50 per monthly bill.
These reserves' costs are a small fraction of the benefits
wind energy provides for consumers. Wind energy drives down
electricity prices by displacing higher cost, less efficient
power plants. Wind energy also provides the stability of a
long-term fixed energy price, which is offered by very few
other energy sources. This protects consumers from fluctuations
in fuel prices, much like a fixed-rate mortgage protects
homeowners from interest rate spikes.
Utilities understand that wind energy is a good deal for
their customers. At least 74 utilities bought or owned wind
power in 2012, up 50 percent from a year ago. The Southern
Company recently made its third wind energy purpose, explaining
that wind energy reduces its customers' electric bills.
Similarly, Oklahoma Gas and Electric estimates that a single
wind project will save Arkansas customers $46 million.
Finally, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission found
that a single wind purchase by Xcel Energy, quote, ``will save
rate payers $100 million,'' unquote, while providing the
opportunity to lock in a price for 25 years. In short, wind
energy is playing a critical role in providing American homes
and businesses with reliable homegrown and low-cost energy.
Thank you for inviting me, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gramlich follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.066
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Dr. Lesser, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LESSER
Mr. Lesser. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
Rush, members of the subcommittee. My name is Jonathan Lesser.
I am the president of Continental Economics. I began my
professional career almost 30 years ago as a load forecaster
for Idaho Power. Over the years, in my work for government,
industry, and as a consultant, I have been involved with and
researched many facets of the energy industry as well as
corresponding policy issues at both the national and individual
state levels.
I appreciate your invitation to be here today to discuss
the reliability challenges confronting us as we seek to
integrate intermittent resources onto the grid. I am appearing
today on my own behalf, and the views expressed in my testimony
today are mine and mine alone.
Integration costs can be broken down into two categories.
The first category includes the cost of ensuring the power
system is operated safely and reliably from moment to moment.
The second category includes the cost of connecting
resources to the power grid, called interconnection cost,
specifically building new transmission lines and substations to
deliver electricity from individual generating units to load
centers like D.C.
To operate a power system, the supply of electricity must
continuously match demand. If power supply exceeds demand at
any time, it can overload the system. If demand exceeds supply,
you can have brownouts or even rolling blackouts. Because the
overall demand for electricity changes moment to moment, power
system operators must continually adjust electric supplies.
In addition, as has been mentioned, grid operators have to
plan for contingencies. On those hot sultry August days here in
Washington, D.C., the demand for electricity peaks because of
air conditioning, so power system operators have to ensure
there is sufficient resources to meet those loads.
Gas generators provide the most quick reserve capacity
because they can be started, stopped or ramped up and down
fairly easily and quickly. In contrast, coal and nuclear plants
are designed to run around the clock, generating the same
amount of power all times. Starting a nuclear plant, for
example, can actually take several days. Although the output of
these plants can be varied up and down, doing so increases the
wear and tear on them, which increases their operating costs
and reduces their fuel efficiency.
It is not surprising that intermittent resources, like wind
and solar, cannot provide these sorts of operating reserves. In
fact, intermittent resources actually increase the need for
reserves. The reason for this is that system operators must
also cope with the wide swings and output from intermittent
resources. That, in a nutshell, is what integrating
intermittent generating resources is all about and why it is
both challenging and costly.
Chicago's experience during last July's heat wave provides
a compelling example. During that heat wave, Illinois wind
power generated less than 5 percent of its capacity during the
record breaking heat, producing only an average of 120
megawatts of power from over 2,700 megawatts of installed wind.
On July 6, 2012, when the demand for electricity in northern
Illinois and Chicago hit a record of over 22,000 megawatts, the
average amount of wind generation that day was a virtually non-
existent 4 megawatts. The potential loss of thousands of
megawatts of intermittent generation for a short time, which
has occurred in the past, means that system operators must
increase the quantity of available reserve capacity. That
increases cost. It is as if thousands of vehicles have their
engines idling, waiting to run on the possibility they are
needed.
One such study, for example, by the American Tradition
Institute, found reliability related transmission losses and
costs for Texas alone are over $1 billion per year.
In regions with wholesale electric markets, system
operators use next day forecasts of availability and demand to
determine how they will operate the power system. Although even
wind advocates acknowledge wind's inherent intermittency, they
claim wind generation can be predicted accurately several days
in advance, allowing system operators to reduce, if not
eliminate, the impacts of wind's volatility. Forecasts and
operational data, including--in areas including Texas as well
as in European countries, show that is not the case.
The other thing about that that is causing this problem to
be severe is that subsidies, such as the PTC and renewable
portfolio standards, plus the socialization of most integration
costs, have increased reliability concerns. As Commissioner
Donna Nelson of the Texas Public Utility Commission stated last
year, the market distortions caused by renewable energy
incentives are one of the primary causes, I believe, of our
current resource adequacy issues. This distortion makes it
difficult for other generation types to recover their cost and
discourages investment in new generation, and I will leave it
at that.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lesser follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.093
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Dr. Lesser.
And thank all of you for your testimony.
At this time, we will begin the questions, and I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
In your testimony, Dr. Lesser, you had a paragraph or so,
and basically in which you said that increasing use of
intermittent generating resources does create obstacles to
reliability or at least it exacerbates reliability, and it
increases integration cost to the consumers. Would you
elaborate on that a little bit for me?
Mr. Lesser. Sure. The problem with integrating intermittent
resources, like wind and solar, is that you have to, in
addition to planning for the ups and downs of demand all the
time, you have to have additional reserve capacity in case the
wind stops blowing suddenly, and that has happened. Well, that
means you have to have additional costs incurred for other
reserve capacity. As a result, that increases cost.
Because wind is subsidized, you get more of it, you get
greater investment in wind power. That is why you have a
subsidy. That tends to increase the amount of wind capacity
that exacerbates the reliability issues that grid operators
have to deal with. Plus when you socialize transmission costs,
such as building new transmission lines in Texas, which is now
up to a cost of over $7 billion, that again, you are incenting
that sort of investment, which raises costs for everyone and
creates more reliability problems.
It is true that, you know, the grid operators can handle
wind reliability at this point. I mean, the lights are on in
here, that is true, but as you increase, though, that, the
amount of wind penetration on the system, those costs will keep
increasing, and it will become more difficult to maintain a
reliable power system.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, you know, the production tax credit was
recently extended for the wind industry, and we hear a lot
about negative pricing or selling electricity generation at
less than your cost. There is quite a bit of that going on in
the wind industry. Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Lesser. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Negative pricing sounds
great. It actually happens--and it sounds very strange because
why would anyone, why would the market price for any good ever
be negative? You know, why would someone want to pay you to buy
what they are selling?
But because of the production tax credit is negative 23--is
$23 per megawatt, that translates on a before tax basis of $35
per megawatt. Well, so wind power producers get in at
production tax credit, have an incentive to bid in their
generation into the market as long as the price is greater than
negative $35. And because other power producers, like nuclear
and coal plants, which are designed to run round the clock,
they keep their system operating. They can't just shut the
plants down. So you end up with excess supply in certain times
of the year and you end up with negative prices. That the hours
of negative pricing during the year is actually increasing.
What you have now is when those prices are negative, so
those coal nuclear operators are actually having to pay the
grid to keep operating. That obviously increases their cost,
reduces their profitability; they are having to shut down.
In Minnesota, for example, I believe they announced the
closure of one coal plant because of subsidized wind.
Therefore, what happens is, you start shutting down those
plants that are needed for reliability because of wind,
subsidized wind generation, well, you still have to maintain
reliability, so you have to have more reserve capacity, which
again, increases cost.
Mr. Whitfield. All of us, I think, recognize that the Clean
Air Act has been a good piece of legislation, and as the
gentleman from California said, our CO2 emissions
are the lowest they have been in 20 years.
Are any of you familiar with EPA providing an exemption to
a fuel source for the purposes of being a backup, as you
mentioned in your demand response paragraph, Mr. Shelk, where
EPA has now exempted diesel fuel engines from the Clean Air
Act?
Mr. Shelk. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
In a rule, a final rule in January called RICE NESHAPS,
which it stands for Reciprocal Internal Combustion Engines, and
this is the important part, this is for the Hazardous Air
Pollutant Standards, and this is an interesting issue because
it unites in the litigation pending in the D.C. Circuit and
before EPA power generators, power health groups, environmental
organizations, states, everyone but the demand response
community oppose this, and EPA decided that these backup
engines should be exempt, these diesel engines.
Now, to their credit, they did require ultralow sulfur
diesel, but the problem is we went to EPA and said, look, you
have to understand how this rule overlays with electric power
markets. And this is sort of the classic case in government
that we have all encountered of sort of stovepipe thinking
where, when FERC acted to pay demand response, as I indicated,
in 2011, we raised these environmental concerns about the
backup generators. We said they should be excluded because the
owner of the engine is not actually reducing demand. It is just
taking less power from the grid, but they are turning on those
uncontrolled diesel generators at the industrial facility, and
FERC said, go talk to EPA. We raised this concern at EPA, and
in the final rule, you will see EPA said, well, certain
parties, meaning us and many others, raised this and you should
go back to FERC.
So, it is sort of the two agencies really are talking to
each other, and we are very concerned about this for the
reasons that I have outlined and you mentioned, and again, this
unites all of us, whether you are for coal or nuclear, natural
gas, renewables; what is happening now is these small power
plants, these backup diesel generators, can be linked together
in the market. They can bid into the capacity market and the
energy market where we get our revenue, regardless of what fuel
source you prefer, and they are backing out those cleaner forms
of generation, and we are hopeful EPA will reconsider the rule
or the court will intervene.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. My time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gramlich, you seem to be sitting there wanting to
respond to some of the statements of Dr. Lesser. Do you have
any response regarding the performance of the wind industry in
my windy city of Chicago?
Mr. Gramlich. Yes. Thank you.
I mean, I didn't hear anything from Dr. Lesser that
contradicted the statements I made about many parts of the
country being able to reliably integrate vastly greater amounts
of wind energy than we already have on the system.
We were just in our annual conference in Chicago with about
10,000 people, and Governor Branstad from Iowa came there and
spoke, and he was raving about the 20 percent of their
electricity that comes from wind. And I just saw also this week
he announced that they are bringing 1,000 more megawatts. And I
don't think he or MidAmerican Energy want an unreliable power
grid; in fact, I think they want to further diversify their
electricity portfolio.
When we were all here last and I testified before this same
subcommittee, we were talking about the value of a diverse
portfolio. And I am not saying we should do 100 percent wind on
the grid, I am saying, as we all said then, every panelist
said, yes, we need a more diverse portfolio. Wind would be just
one part, but an important part, of that diverse portfolio. It
will keep the lights on. And the costs, I don't disagree that
there can be some incremental costs with integrating any
resource, but you have to say, as compared to what? If you
increase more wind on the grid, you may have, as I indicated, a
very modest cost. If you put more large conventional plants on
the grid, you also have an incremental cost.
Mr. Rush. Thank you so much.
Mr. Sypolt, in your written testimony you mentioned that
there are concerns in the Midwest Independent System Operator,
MISO, region regarding the number of coal-fire-powered
generators that would need to be retired and replaced with
natural gas generators. You cited the testimony of MISO's
executive vice president, Clair Moeller, from her March 19th,
2013, testimony before the subcommittee that MISO estimated
that about 11.5 gigawatts of coal-fired generation may need to
be replaced to comply with the environmental regulations, and
that MISO was currently identifying potential impediments to
integrating that amount of gas-fired generation in order to
plan accordingly.
Are you aware of what some of those barriers might be? Do
you have any concerns regarding the natural gas pipeline
industry's ability to build the capacity or infrastructure that
is needed in order to keep pace with the market demand in the
MISO region or any other region?
Mr. Sypolt. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And,
you know, as I said earlier, the concerns that INGAA has are
regionally targeted. MISO is one where a study had been done
that said there are conversions that are going to occur from
coal to most likely natural gas. Is there adequate pipeline
capacity available?
INGAA is very confident that the pipeline industry is up to
being able to build that pipeline capacity needed to meet the
additional demand on the pipelines there. What is required,
though, is that generators actually sign up for some firm
transportation to make sure that capacity is built. I am not
saying that every generating plant built has to have firm
transportation, but I am saying there needs to be a review,
which MISO actually did, that said, you know, there are
situations where there may not be adequate pipeline capacity,
and the only way that pipeline capacity would be built is if
there are some long-term contracts signed that allows those
pipeline builds to be economically built.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Cicio, do you have any responses?
Mr. Cicio. I think that the--I would agree that we have a
very good regulatory approach in how pipelines are built.
What we are concerned about, as I previously expressed, is
that there is no entity that is overseeing this ``pipeline
capacity at peak demand concern.'' There is in the electric
side of the market, there is the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation that is evaluating the Nation for
electric reliability. We are raising the question for a
conversation that, you know, there is this absence of oversight
in determining whether or not there is capacity problems in the
natural gas pipeline, and so that is a concern.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time----
Mr. Rush. Yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas Mr. Hall for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Lesser, I notice in your testimony you mentioned
the myth of green jobs, and I sure agree with you that there is
a lot of myth involved there. And I guess the question is
whether or not subsidies for renewables really are creating
sustainable job and economic growth.
The meeting today is about examining the challenges and the
consumer impacts resulting from the increased use of natural
gas and renewables. And I think sometime I would like to see us
have a hearing here on really what fossil fuels do for us. And
2013 is not completed yet, but in 2012 indicates that from coal
we get 37 percent of the preliminary U.S. electric generation
and about 30 percent from natural gas. Those are hard, cold
facts that we can't fight.
And Mr. Waxman is a wonderful member of this committee, and
I have sat here with him for 30-something years. He continues
to warn us, and in closing, about the threat of global warming
will always be with us. And of course it will as long as he
keeps putting in the Congressional Record and they keep talking
about it. But without fossil fuels, we would all have to work
our way or feel our way out of this building right today, and
go to a car that wouldn't start, and get to a home that would
be cold in the winter and too hot in the summertime. So we
ought to have a hearing sometime on what fossil fuels are
really still doing for us, but that is not what we are here for
today.
We need fossil fuels, and we need to depend on it, and
certainly I would ask you that. There is a lot of discussion on
renewables. And do you see this as a realistic expectation? If
not, why not?
Dr. Lesser.
Mr. Lesser. Well, thank you, Representative Hall.
Mr. Hall. Now, you almost answered in your--you almost
answered it for me a moment ago, but go ahead and expand on
that a little for us.
Mr. Lesser. Thank you, sir.
In my own view, you will see lots of studies that will show
that, say, building more wind capacity, renewable generation
subsidies will increase economic growth. Well, that is true,
they will increase economic growth as long as the subsidies are
continued, which is why they want to continue subsidies. The
problem is those studies never look at the other side of the
ledger, which is who is paying for it? They assume that the
money just falls from the sky.
You simply cannot subsidize your way to long-term,
sustained economic growth. That is economic free-lunchism. It
does not work. It would be nice if it worked. We would all be a
lot happier. We would have a much better economy in the
country.
Europe has found this out. In Spain, Germany, Denmark, they
are cutting back on their subsidies of renewable power because
it simply doesn't work. They cannot afford it.
In terms of the sort of--I think you mentioned some of the
global climate change and emissions, there is a small impact on
emissions because of renewables, but it is very small, because
you have to operate the remaining parts of the power grid more
inefficiently by cycling conventional plants up and down. It is
like the difference between driving your car in the city, where
you are in stop-and-go driving, versus driving at a constant
speed on the highway. It is less efficient; therefore, there
are more emissions.
So the real--to the extent climate change is a significant
issue, and you want to reduce carbon emission, then the
question is what is the most efficient, what is the cheapest
way of reducing those emissions? And I would suggest to you
that subsidizing renewables is not the way. It is by far a very
expensive way of reducing climate emissions, and there are much
cheaper ways to do so.
Mr. Hall. And should Congress, then, permit recipients of
subsidies, like the PTC, to bid negative prices in power
markets?
Mr. Lesser. No, sir. In my view, all subsidies should be
removed, not only subsidies for renewable resources, but also
subsidies for conventional resources. You should have a level
playing field in which all resources can compete.
It is funny, though, in this week's AWEA meetings that Mr.
Gramlich referenced, AWEA is now advocating what are called
master limited partnerships for wind developers. So not only
will they get the PTC and a tax credit worth $35 per megawatt
hour on a pretax basis, but you would have a corporate
structure that doesn't pay income taxes. That is a really good
deal. You get a tax credit, and you don't have to pay income
taxes. I would like to have that for my business.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hall. And I thank the chair.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
California Mr. Waxman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I assume, Dr. Lesser, those same mechanisms are available
to fossil fuel enterprises, aren't they?
Mr. Lesser. No, they are not, sir.
Mr. Waxman. They are not.
Mr. Lesser. For gas pipelines, you have----
Mr. Waxman. Well, I think you are wrong.
Mr. Lesser. You would----
Mr. Waxman. I think you are wrong, and we could look at it
very carefully. The REIT and the other tax reductions for
fossil fuels are available.
Over the past 4 years, we have doubled our capacity to
generate renewable electricity from wind and solar resources.
Five percent of our electricity now comes from renewable
sources other than hydropower. State and Federal renewable
energy policies are playing an important role in driving this
transition. The cost of renewable energy is also rapidly
declining, and, therefore, wind power is already cost-
competitive with fossil-fuel generation in some parts of the
country.
We have made progress, but we need to do much more to
reduce our carbon pollution and move towards a clean-energy
economy. Low-carbon, low-cost renewable electricity should
appeal to all members of this subcommittee, but instead of
embracing this technology, some are attacking it.
Mr. Gramlich, we have heard testimony today that wind costs
too much and impairs the reliability of the electric grid, so I
am going to ask you some questions about these claims.
Does wind generation require large amounts of expensive
backup fossil generation, and how much does the necessary
backup power cost consumers?
Mr. Gramlich. Thank you.
No, it does not require large amounts of backup generation.
All electricity sources rely on system backup from all other
resources. And the costs of the wind reserves that are needed
are about 6 cents out of a typical household's $140 monthly
electric bill as compared to those costs for other conventional
resources that are much higher.
Mr. Waxman. How do the costs of backup generation for wind
compare to the costs of backup generation for conventional
power plants?
Mr. Gramlich. The costs for conventional power is, at least
in one study cited in my testimony, about 40 times higher,
about $2.50 per monthly bill compared to the 6 cents that I
stated a minute ago.
Mr. Waxman. The backup generation for wind is much cheaper,
because variations in wind are slow and predictable, while a
nuclear fossil-fired power plant can go offline instantly; is
that correct?
Mr. Gramlich. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. We have heard claims that wind is unpredictable
and can suddenly stop blowing, adversely affecting electric
reliability. Is that accurate?
Mr. Gramlich. No. Wind energy can be forecasted now with
sufficient accuracy so grid operators can operate reliably and
handle the fluctuations in a very low-cost manner.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Weiss?
Mr. Weiss. Yes, Mr. Waxman. The North American Reliability
Corporation looked at some of the kinds of claims that Dr.
Lesser made and found them wanting. In their State of
Reliability report of 2013, and I am going to read from the
report, and I quote, ``There were no significant reliability
challenges reported in the 2012 summer periods resulting from
the integration of variable generation resources.''
Mr. Waxman. Thank you. I want to put that whole statement
in the record.
Mr. Weiss. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman. Let me ask about the production tax credit.
Some argue that the cost of wind is so low, that the tax credit
allows wind to bid negative prices into the market, and they
say that these negative bids are undermining the profitability
of other generation sources.
How often does this negative pricing occur, Mr. Gramlich,
and how often is it affecting the market price for electricity?
Mr. Gramlich. It is extremely rare; far less than 1 percent
of the time. Moreover, the occurrences have dropped by 60
percent in Texas, which is the area where this has been
alleged, and they will be virtually gone as soon as
transmission lines are put in place into these few localized
areas in the country.
Moreover, it doesn't harm consumers. Low prices are a good
thing. And the market price that is actually received by--if
some were concerned with, say, fossil and nuclear plants, they
are actually not receiving, those plants. It is almost never
actually received by them.
Mr. Waxman. What about the price for consumers? Does wind
generation increase utility bills or save consumers money? I
gather your last statement was that it saves consumers money.
Mr. Gramlich. Right. It is saving consumers money.
Mr. Waxman. That is a good thing unless you want consumers
to pay more money so they can continue to use coal even when
natural gas would be cheaper, and even when wind may be
cheaper.
Mr. Weiss or Mr. Gramlich, do you understand whether the
REITs mechanisms and other tax mechanisms are available to
fossil fuel industries, as they may well become available for
renewable energy?
Mr. Weiss. As I understand it, Mr. Waxman, the master
limited partnership is available and being employed now by oil
companies.
Mr. Waxman. So it is a good way to raise money?
Mr. Weiss. Yes, it is.
Mr. Waxman. And raising money for enterprise, as I
understand it, is supposed to be a good thing, investment by
entrepreneurs to advance good business.
Mr. Weiss. And overall the Nuclear Energy Institute looked
at subsidies overall over the last 60 years and found 70
percent go to fossil fuels, 10 percent have gone to renewables.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. And
without objection, the document that Mr. Weiss referred to will
be entered into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I will recognize the gentleman
from Kansas Mr. Pompeo for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pompeo. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Ranking Member Waxman this morning said that some
on our side are confused. He wasn't sure whether we liked cheap
natural gas or not. Not confused. I like cheap natural gas,
like cheap coal. Frankly, I like cheap energy. I like consumers
to have affordable energy. There should be no confusion about
that.
Mr. Sypolt, I want to talk to you about pipelines. Today I
actually introduced a piece of legislation that will for the
first time tell FERC, you have a deadline; you got to get your
homework in on time. It will give every agency that has got a
role in approving pipeline permits the chance to do their work
and to decide whether or they like it or not. There is no
requirement that they approve the pipeline, but it says you
can't sit on it. You can't hang onto it forever. Gives them 12
months. There is an opportunity for an extension. We have got
bipartisan support for that. It is being introduced by a lot of
members of this committee: Mr. Matheson, Mr. Olson, Mr.
Gardner, Mr. Johnson.
You know, we saw $30 gas at the Boston citygates in the
Northeast not too long ago, and I just wanted to get your view
of whether creating certainty for folks who are investing in
pipelines and want to build these out will help our electric
grid reliability.
Mr. Sypolt. Thank you for the question, Mr. Congressman.
And INGAA certainly supports your bill. We believe that
anything that provides certainty and actually moves the process
along more quickly so the pipelines can be built in the areas
where they are needed can actually help reduce the cost of
energy getting delivered into those areas.
I think FERC does a very good job today with their process,
but they don't have all the authority they actually need to
cause all the permits to be issued in a timely fashion. And the
deadline that you proposed by your bill, we think, would be
very helpful in assuring that pipelines are built in a timely
fashion.
Mr. Pompeo. Mr. Shelk, in your written testimony, you
talked about, so we have got this shale gas revolution, it is
exciting. If the Federal Government doesn't mess it up, it will
be very important to American manufacturing. It will be great
for grid reliability as well. But you talked about being
overconfident about anything in terms of the future. It wasn't
that long ago that we thought we were out of natural gas as
well.
Give me a sense of what you think the grid reliability
implications are for that risk and how we as Federal
policymakers ought to respond to the things that we might well
not foresee.
Mr. Shelk. Thanks for the question.
I followed the hearing earlier this week and also an
interview just this week from the former chair of the
subcommittee, Phil Sharp from Indiana, who is now the president
of Resources for the Future. And it was a long time ago, I
think you go back to when I was here in the 1980s and 1990s,
assumptions were made then, for example, that we were going to
have to have a surcharge on every consumer to bring a very
expensive pipeline down from Alaska. We had the Synthetic Fuels
Corporation. I mean, you can kind of--the list goes on.
I think it was reassuring to hear the bipartisan testimony
Tuesday that we are going to have game changers, that we
couldn't predict then. But I think this committee, for
example--we wouldn't have the natural gas revolution, the shale
gas phenomenon, as I said in my written statement, unless this
committee, again, coming together in the late 1980s saying, you
know what, we made a mistake in the 1970s by thinking we could
micromanage this with command-and-control regulation. And
everybody on the committee, after some contention, to be sure,
came together and removed the wellhead price controls,
restructured the pipeline industry, removed the Fuel Use Act
that said no natural gas could be used in power generation.
So my advice would be I think you set up the right
mechanism. At FERC they are very vigilant about this. I would
respectfully disagree with Mr. Cicio. There may not be
something called the natural gas reliability entity, but you
all in this committee created electric reliability organization
in the form of NERC. NERC is looking at this. DOE is looking at
this.
The bottom line is I think what we have seen is we can't
predict what is going to happen, and therefore, the most
flexible, adaptable system you can have is what works best. And
I think market forces ultimately, within the confines of smart
regulation, are good. What doesn't work is trying to
micromanage today and say what the fuel mix should be and what
percentages tomorrow.
Mr. Pompeo. So things like State RPSs which say ``thou
shalt'' would be bad policy for any energy source?
Mr. Shelk. Well, now you are going to get me in trouble.
Mr. Hall is not here, but Mr. Hall famously said when I was
here decades ago that my friends are for the bill, and my
friends were against the bill, and I am going to vote with my
friends.
Mr. Pompeo. But, I mean, I think if you are----
Mr. Shelk. And in my business, if I have members behind me
that are on one side and members on the other, I am going to
support my members.
But to be serious, what we focus on, I think this is
important, what Mr. Waxman was saying, under the Federal Power
Act that this committee adopted in 1935, these are state-level
decisions. And we may or may not agree with them, but what we
focus on and what our members focus on is if a state wants to
go down that road, number one, use competitive procurement so
everybody competes to serve the business at the least cost to
consumers. Number two, you have to have market rules to
compensate the gas plants adequately, which is not happening
today. States are behind. As the RPS standards, whether you
like them or not, increase, as they will in the next 5 to 10
years, the states aren't adequately paying for the backup
generation that exists.
Mr. Pompeo. Yes.
Mr. Shelk. So that is what we focus on. And you have got to
get the market rules to match up with the RPS standards, and
that often doesn't happen.
Mr. Pompeo. I appreciate that.
My time is up, but there are national implications to the
State rules as well.
Mr. Shelk. Yep.
Mr. Pompeo. It affects the national grid and imposes costs
on States that are not the State that put the law in place.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Texas Mr. Green for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our panel for being here.
The disconnect between incentives created by wholesale
power market rules and the need for commitments that ensure the
availability of pipeline capacity has been widely noted. What
can Congress do to help this problem?
Now, I admit one of the worst decisions Congress ever made
was back in the 1970s saying we can't use natural gas. Of
course, back then natural gas was a very precious resource, and
even 8 years ago it was $12, $13 in MCF. But Congress does
overreact like they did in the 1970s. What can we do to help
that certainty?
Mr. Shelk. A couple of thoughts there. One is, as the INGAA
witness mentioned, and we would agree, there are wholesale
market rules that need to be addressed. Where we disagree is
you can't simply surgically say, well, if a gas-fired generator
enters into a 20-year contract for firm gas transportation, we
are just going to pass that along to consumers, because that
could be a considerable expense.
So what happens is under the watch of FERC, the regions
work on this, and they are doing that now. They are looking at
those issues. So I think by holding the hearings you held last
month, by continuing to hold hearings and do oversight of FERC
that oversees the wholesale market, that is, I think, what
Congress can do. There is really no need for additional
legislation.
But what also needs to happen, and maybe there is a
congressional role here, I am not sure, is it is not just the
wholesale market, it is the retail market. And the retail
market is under the jurisdiction of the states. And I will give
you a specific example.
If we were to have gas-fired generators in New England
enter into long-term contracts for gas transportation, one, it
is not necessary most of the time. But put that aside, there
are states in the region, Connecticut in particular, that has a
bill moving through the legislature very rapidly as we are
meeting today that would hot-wire a pipeline and a long-term
contract for Canadian hydro from Quebec from a crown
corporation in Canada that is opposed by the Governor of New
Hampshire, it is opposed by Massachusetts, but if it is passed
by Connecticut, it will artificially suppress the market price
and make it very difficult for anybody to arrange for long-term
gas transportation. So I think Congress can maybe help shed
some light on that, but ultimately it is the jurisdiction over
FERC.
Mr. Green. Well, I have to admit all my life I have heard
about the Austin-to-Boston connection for natural gas, and I
have always wondered why they still burned coal oil.
But anyway, Mr. Sypolt, my next question is I want to talk
about the reliability of the natural gas pipelines. Do you or
Dominion have many outages in what is key to the reliability in
the pipeline sector, and what is the fundamental changes in
your market area that is causing you to change your pipeline
operations?
Mr. Sypolt. Thank you for the question, Mr. Congressman. I
would tell you that the pipeline, natural gas interstate
pipeline, grid has been extremely reliable to serve those
customers who have signed up for primary firm transportation.
The pipeline system was designed around those contracts, and as
there is growth in given markets, and there is the market
signal from the market by way of a long-term contract that says
they need additional capacity, that capacity is built, and
those markets are served extremely reliably.
You asked about Dominion's experience with reliability. You
know, we did go back and look at this for our primary firm
contracts over a period of time, and our reliability has been
absolutely phenomenal. We went back the last 3 years and had
zero interruptions with regard to primary firm transportation.
And I know there was one run we went 7 years where we had no
impact on any primary firm contract. So the pipeline grid is
extremely reliable for those who pay for that service.
Many times there are folks who refer to reliability as--a
pipeline as not being reliable are really looking at
interruptible-type transportation contracts, and you can't talk
about that as reliability. The pipeline system was not designed
to meet those on a reliable basis. That is actually
transportation capacity issues by markets that are paying for
it that are not using it at any given time, and when those
markets who are paying for that under primary firm actually
need it, that is when it is pulled back.
And that has really been much of the concern that INGAA has
really talked about as you go forward, and more and more
transportation is needed by growing markets. Whether that is
power generation or industrial load or growing liquid
distribution load, what it really says is there is going to be
more and more demand on the pipeline system, and really
counting on capacity that is not used by the current market
that pays for that under primary firm is the real risk.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am almost out
of time, but I have a couple of other questions on cogen, and I
would like to submit it to the panel.
We went through that battle in the legislature in the
1980s, and at that time my friends were on both sides, and I
was with my friends. But it worked out in Texas somehow that--
and cogen--during cap and trade, I wanted cogeneration to be
considered one of our energy savings, because it is such a
benefit not only to the customers, but the industry.
But again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia Mr.
Griffith for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very
much that you are having this hearing.
And also appreciate my friends from Dominion being here
today. I know, Mr. Sypolt, that you are the gas guy, but do
appreciate the fact that Dominion Energy has not abandoned
coal, particularly central Appalachian coal, and was there at
the ribbon cutting at the cleanest coal-burning plant that was
opened up officially last September, and very proud of that
facility. Unfortunately, of course, under new EPA regulations
that have been proposed, that facility wouldn't be allowed to
be constructed today, but we are awfully proud to have you all
there in the Ninth District of Virginia creating jobs and
bolstering our economy.
Does it make you nervous, though, and have to ask, when you
think back on quotes from the President that indicate that he
might not be so hot on natural gas? Of course, it seems that a
lot of folks who were not for natural gas a few years ago are
now for it because it seems to be the answer to a lot of
problems. But I would have to think it would make you nervous,
and I want to ask you that, when you remember that quote from
the President in January of 2008 when he said, quote, When I
was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my
plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket, even regardless of what I say about
whether coal is good or bad, because I am capping greenhouse
gases. Coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it,
whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they
would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money.
They will pass that money on to the consumers.
Does that statement still make you nervous?
Mr. Sypolt. Well, what I would say is, you know, Dominion
certainly supports all forms of energy. And coal--you know, we
have nuclear, we have coal, we have natural gas-driven power
plants, we have wind generation, as well as building some solar
and looking at some offshore wind as well, and have some hydro.
So we certainly support all forms of energy, and we think our
country needs all forms of energy.
Mr. Griffith. And your company has always been diversified,
and that has always been one of your market success stories is
that you haven't put all your eggs in one basket. Nor should
the United States of America put all of its eggs into one
basket at any time, and we probably shouldn't eliminate that
great black egg of coal from the basket of energy sources for
the United States.
Let me move on to another question, if I might. Mr. Cicio,
I would have to say to you, we have heard a lot of testimony
about natural gas being cheap, but we heard testimony earlier
this year that when natural gas hits that $4 mark, that coal
once again becomes very, very competitive. And, of course, when
you are trying to have that system that is secure, you want to
have a diversity. And isn't it true that natural gas is
expected to hit $4 by the end of the year? And I think in March
it was already at $3.81, so that coal is once again very
competitive if you are just looking at costs? And what we are
really facing here are regulations that are hurting coal, not
marketplace competitiveness.
Mr. Cicio. Well, that is right. It is critically important
that coal--it is critically important for industrial
competitiveness where small amounts of changes in the price of
electricity makes a great deal. Coal needs to be in the mix.
And $4 of gas bumps into very competitive coal prices.
Mr. Griffith. And we are just about there, and probably----
Mr. Cicio. Yes.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. We will be in that neighborhood
for some time.
Mr. Cicio. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much.
Dr. Lesser, am I to understand that your concerns are that
in other places in the world where they have relied on
intermittent sources, and we heard that Germany was doing a
good job of moving in that direction, but isn't it, in fact,
the case that Germany is having some significant problems with
their intermittent sources, and that it is actually affecting
industry there because they can't count on the reliability?
And I am looking at an article from the Institute for
Energy Research of January this year where they say, To
illustrate the problem that renewable energy instability can
cause, here is an example: electric grid weakened for just a
millisecond at 3 a.m. The machines at Hydro Aluminum in Hamburg
ground to a halt. Production stopped, and the aluminum belts
snagged, hitting machines and destroying a piece of the mill
with damages amounting to $12,300 to equipment. The voltage
weakened two more times in the next 3 weeks, causing the
company to purchase its own emergency system using batteries
costing $185,000.
Are those the kind of stories that cause you concern? Do
you have similar stories that you have heard?
Mr. Lesser. Those are certainly part of the issues that are
of concern. For me, I think other issues are the, say--and
especially in Europe, the cost of electricity is extremely
high, which reduces economic growth. That is why they are
cutting back on all their subsidies.
So my concern is here we are going down that same path,
that we are making it much more difficult to maintain
reliability. I know that ERCOT, the grid operator in Texas, is
quite concerned about potential rolling blackouts this summer
because of very high demand. They have so much wind. Wind tends
not to blow when the power is most needed. That is just the way
it is that I have discovered in my own research. So those are
significant problems, yes.
Mr. Griffith. And that can affect jobs; can it not?
Mr. Lesser. Absolutely.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's times has expired.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentlelady from
California Mrs. Capps for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses, each of you, for your
testimony.
You know, we all know that America's power is generated by
many different sources, to be sure, but we also know that
fossil fuels make up the overwhelming majority of our Nation's
energy supply. Today is the third subcommittee hearing held
this year on the sources of fuel used for electricity
generation in the United States, but we have yet to hold a
hearing examining the consequences of our dependence on fossil
fuels. This is more than an odd note, considering that we are
already seeing the very real impacts from this dependence on
fossil fuels: rising sea levels, severe droughts, extreme
weather, and superstorms. Climate change is very real and is
already causing serious problems that demand action. In
addition to obvious environmental damage, these storms,
droughts and wildfires are having a significant economic
impact.
And, Mr. Weiss, could you share with us briefly--I want to
ask you a couple more questions, too--some of the documented
research of how climate change is affecting our economy?
Mr. Weiss. Thank you, Representative Capps.
Yes. We analyzed the $25 billion in damages extreme weather
events over the past 2 years, including the drought in Texas
and the Southwest, and found that the total economic damages
were $188 billion. In addition, the federal government spent
$136 billion on disaster relief and recovery over those same
periods, which is about $400 per household per year for
disaster relief and recovery.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
In your testimony today, you stated, and it is a quote,
Because the Federal Government pays for a major share of
disaster recovery, investing in resiliency now will help
protect taxpayers from more deficit spending in the future.
This is actually rather counter to what we often hear about
the value of investing in our country. Could you elaborate on
this just briefly? How can predisaster mitigation spending
actually save taxpayers money in the long run?
Mr. Weiss. Well, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
found that by investing $1 in disaster resilience, or what they
call predisaster mitigation, that reduces damages by $4. And
so, for example, your efforts to get more investments in
disaster resilience will help save us money in the long run by
a ratio of about 4 to 1, according to FEMA.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
One more question, if I--yes, I have time.
Especially in these tough fiscal times, we certainly need
to be allocating tax dollars more effectively at all levels of
government. Many States and localities understand the long-term
benefits you have discussed and are eager to implement
mitigation projects. The problem is, however, they can't afford
it.
I believe the broad public benefit in cost savings alone
create a compelling national interest for the Federal
Government to help our local communities plan and implement
predisaster mitigation efforts, and that is why I sent a letter
to the President earlier this year with 39 of my colleagues,
including several members on this committee, urging him to take
action on this issue. And I was pleased to see the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget include $200 million for climate
mitigation projects, but this really only scratches the surface
of what is needed.
So, Mr. Weiss, again, there is an estimate of how much
funding is needed for these projects nationwide. Would you
share some information around that topic with us?
Mr. Weiss. Well, the Congressional Research Service was
looking at this for the utility industry, and they found that
the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates we need to
spend over $600 billion between now and 2020 to make our
utility system more resistant to disruption from extreme
weather. But they could not find another estimate besides the
ASCE one about it, and so that is something we need to do,
which, again, in your letter to the President you recommended.
It is important when looking at the costs of natural gas
and coal-generated electricity that those fuels include the
external economic costs of their use, which includes climate
change and extreme weather linked to climate change. Otherwise
society is in effect subsidizing the use of coal and natural
gas by paying these costs for damages from extreme weather and
then the taxpayers paying, you know, $400 a household for
disaster relief and recovery.
Mrs. Capps. We need to shift our attitude. And I appreciate
your comments. This is a major problem, I know. Our energy
committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, I think, is tasked
with something that can't be solved overnight, but we need to
start moving in that right direction.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope this committee will begin to
examine the realities of climate change, and what we can do,
and what our obligations here in this committee are to minimize
its impacts.
I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mrs. Capps.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas Mr.
Barton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you
and Mr. Rush holding this hearing.
At a previous hearing earlier this year, one of our
witnesses Mr. Gramlich was here representing the wind
association, and I asked him some question about production tax
credit impacting negative prices into the grid and ERCOT, and
to his credit, we asked some questions on the record, and he
did answer. My staff was a little bit puzzled by the answers,
because they don't conform with the information that we have at
the staff level, but I do admit that you can look at data and
interpret it different ways. So instead of revisiting those
questions directly to Mr. Gramlich, I am going to ask Dr.
Lesser, who is sitting next to him, to take a crack at it.
So, Dr. Lesser, the issue is the production tax credit for
wind, which I supported when it was initially proposed, because
wind power was a startup, struggling sector of the energy
economy, and I felt it was fair to help give it some production
tax credits to get it off the ground. I think it is a more
difficult proposition now, because wind power is firmly
established and is a significant part of the generation system
in States like Texas.
So my question to you, Doctor, do you think the production
tax credit impacts the way market prices are in ERCOT in Texas,
and do you think that it should be allowed to use production
tax credit to bid negative into the grid, which has happened,
although it is disputable how often it has happened?
Mr. Lesser. Thank you, Mr. Barton.
No, I do not think that wind operators, anyone receiving
the PTC, should be eligible to bid negatively. There is no
reason for that. Studies by the Northridge Group show that
negative prices are far more prevalent than have been
indicated. Those negative prices are affecting the viability of
conventional generators, which has an effect on reliability. As
far as the PTC going on, you now have these direct subsidies
and mandates for 35 years since PURPA was passed.
One of the arguments you will often hear is that the wind
industry requires additional subsidies to be cost competitive,
yet earlier on we hear wind is competitive, that it is cheaper.
The problem with that, well, if it is cheaper, why do you
continue to need subsidies?
The other issue I would raise is that if--the problem is
what you are doing is you are distorting the market so much by
having a subsidy that is, in fact, greater than the average
market price in many areas--for example, the price in PJM that
serves D.C. as well as much of the Upper Midwest and Atlantic
States was less than the $35 value of the PTC last year. When
you have a subsidy that is larger than the average market
price, that introduces huge economic distortions. In the long
run, that drives out investment of other resources. That means
that consumers will end up paying higher prices. They will
not--again, it is simply an economic fallacy to say that you
can subsidize your way to greater economic growth, lower
prices. It just cannot happen.
Mr. Barton. Is there a way, absent eliminating the
production tax credit, to change the rules to prevent using
that subsidy to bid into a competitive market, or is the only
way to prevent it is to eliminate the subsidy?
Mr. Lesser. Well, I think the easier way to prevent it is
to just eliminate the subsidy. There may be ways. FERC could
oversee markets and change the way resources are allowed to bid
that receive the subsidy, but my preference would be the
simpler approach, which is just eliminate the subsidy, then you
eliminate the problem entirely.
Mr. Barton. I think in fairness I should give Mr. Gramlich
an opportunity to counterpoint what Dr. Lesser just said.
Mr. Gramlich. Thank you.
I mean, the ability to occasionally bid negative is, of
course, available to all resources on the grid, and there are
conventional power plants that do so at times, and they also
receive a variety of federal incentives. So if any such line of
policy inquiry is pursued, we would urge that they not single
out wind.
Mr. Barton. Well, that is a true statement, but the problem
is that with respect to wind power, you are using a Federal
subsidy of the taxpayer. If somebody with private capital bids
negative, they are risking shareholder equity, they are not
using a Federal subsidy directly. With that----
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
At this time I will recognize the gentlelady Dr.
Christensen for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you
and the ranking member for holding this hearing. It has been
very informative, as we in the Virgin Islands work to
transition to cleaner, less expensive fuel.
During the hearings the subcommittee has had on challenges
to electric reliability, we haven't heard much about how
climate change is already affecting electric utilities. We are
beginning to hear some of that today. And, of course, with my
district being in the path of hurricanes every year, it is a
serious concern to me as we can expect stronger storms, I
think, which will affect our utility. And our utility is
already struggling to keep lights on. Just yesterday we had
power outages, and that is an every-other-day occurrence in St.
Thomas.
We know that climate change, Mr. Weiss, will mean more heat
waves, droughts and wildfires. Are there examples of these
kinds of extreme weather events impairing the operation of
power plants?
Mr. Weiss. Thank you.
Yes, there are. From last summer's drought, at least four
states, California, New York, Illinois and, I believe,
Colorado, but let me check on that, did experience disruption
of their power plants because they couldn't get enough cooling
water to make the plants run. I am sorry, it was Connecticut.
California, Connecticut, Illinois and New York.
And it is interesting that the draft National Climate
Assessment predicts that future climate change is going to
interfere with electricity generation. Let me just quote from
them; quote, ``These infrastructure systems, including
electricity, will be affected by various climate-related events
and processes.''
So what is past is prologue in terms of climate change
disrupting the operation of power plants.
Mrs. Christensen. And if we fail to act, and climate change
continues unabated, extreme weather events would be expected to
become more frequent and more disruptive?
Mr. Weiss. Yes. The National Climate Assessment also
predicts that there will be an increase in extreme weather
events, droughts, floods, storms, heat waves and wildfires.
Mrs. Christensen. All right. And, you know, in addition to
the storms, I live on islands, and this was one of the articles
from our newspaper yesterday.
So both of my power plants are located near shorelines, so
the rising sea level is another threat in addition to the
storms. So if we are concerned about the reliability of our
electric grid and government spending, we really need to
address climate change.
Mr. Weiss, has the National Academy of Sciences or any
other scientific institution determined that we are currently
on track to avoid dangerous climate change?
Mr. Weiss. They have--I don't believe National Academy of
Sciences has addressed that. However, if you look at how much
emissions have gone down, the Environmental Protection Agency
said we have had a 7 percent decline in overall greenhouse gas
pollution since 2005. The President committed us to a 17
percent reduction by 2020. So we are reducing our emissions;
however, the Energy Information Administration predicts that,
although emissions are going to go down between now and 2017,
they will begin rising again in 2017. So, no, we do not appear
to be on track to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, reducing our carbon pollution by
the amount necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, I
assume, will require the power sector, as we have been talking
about, to transition to cleaner technologies. Is that
transition happening fast enough? And why are we on track to
start to go up again in 2017?
Mr. Weiss. We are on track to go up again in 2017 because
of the increase in electricity generation expected from fossil
fuel sources, even though we are also going to be increasing
our renewable generation between now and then.
What we really need to do is to require the power plants,
existing power plants, to reduce their carbon pollution either
through legislation, which would be many people's preferred
option, or, failing that, the Environmental Protection Agency
setting standards to do that. That would get us close, but not
reach the President's 17 percent reduction goal by 2020.
Mrs. Christensen. And, you know, just in closing, and I say
this all the time, but we talk about the costs of electricity.
We are very concerned about costs, and so a lot of times the
talk turns to coal or fossil fuels, but the costs in terms of
public health is something that we never take into
consideration, the longer-term costs. And so cost is more than
just the cost of the fuel, it is the cost of the impact to our
communities, to the health of our children.
And with that, I will yield back my time.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia
Mr. McKinley for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In deference to the
time, I am going to try to get a couple questions in; then I
would like to yield some time to my colleague from Colorado.
First, Mr. Sypolt, I want to thank you for your investment
in the development of the Marcellus shale, shale gas, and what
you are doing in West Virginia.
What do you think--do you think that could lead to more gas
turbine development, electric power generation in West Virginia
or around the country?
Mr. Sypolt. Well, absolutely I do, Congressman. The
Marcellus shale is extremely real. Three years ago you hardly
had any production; today it is 10.4 Bcf a day. I mean, so it
is extremely real. And clearly when you have, you know, cheap
energy, you have the opportunity to use that and, you know, to
have turbines to develop or produce additional electricity. You
know, those can certainly be set in West Virginia or in other
surrounding states where they have good access to the Marcellus
shale, so--and I think that asset----
Mr. McKinley. Does that add to more----
Mr. Sypolt [continuing]. Is going to continue to grow.
Mr. McKinley. That will only strengthen more of the
reliability of the grid if we could----
Mr. Sypolt. Absolutely.
Mr. McKinley. So secondly, and continuing this same line of
questioning, if--and you have heard earlier from some of the
comments made about the subsidies to the fossil fuel, coal, oil
and gas. If we were to eliminate those subsidies, what effect
would that have on the grid?
Mr. Sypolt. You know, I don't know that I am really the
best one to answer that, you know, but I would say that, you
know, Dominion has all forms of energy, Congressman, as I
mentioned earlier. You know, we are also looking at wind, you
know.
Mr. McKinley. Well, let us look if any others would like to
add. If we were to eliminate the subsidies for all renewables
and fossil fuels, what effect would that have on the grid
reliability?
Mr. Lesser. I would be happy to answer that----
Mr. McKinley. Please.
Mr. Lesser [continuing]. Sir. I don't think there would be
any adverse impact on reliability. I think what you would see
is much more efficient investment in generating resources for
the long term, and it would be easier to integrate resources
onto the grid. You would have less investment in subsidized
intermittent generation. However, the subsidies--when you look
at the subsidies in contrast to on a total-dollar basis, as Mr.
Gramlich has done, but look at it on a per-megawatt-hour basis,
the Energy Information Administration has issued reports saying
that intermittent resource subsidies are far greater, you know,
in combining both that PTC and our requirements to use through
renewable portfolio standards. So I don't think there would be
any adverse impacts. I think the grid would actually benefit.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back the balance of my
time, then, to my friend from Colorado.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. The gentlemen yields to the gentleman
from Colorado.
Mr. Gardner. I thank my colleague from West Virginia. I
appreciate you yielding time.
Mr. Gramlich, there was a question I think that you had
received from Mr. Waxman that I wanted to clarify a little bit
if I could. I have been a strong supporter of renewable energy
and certainly wind resources where it makes sense, and I try to
make sure that we are doing so from a--as market-based policies
as we can. And I think the question was about whether or not
there was backup baseload generation required for wind, and I
believe your answer was there is not--there is no baseload
backup required.
Mr. Gramlich. There are reserves required for wind, and
coal, and gas and all resources. All resources have the
potential to go off at any moment. And ever since we have had a
power grid, we have had backup across the grid that fills in in
case any resource goes offline.
Mr. Gardner. And thank you. I just want to restate some of
the testimony in a committee hearing earlier this year with Mr.
Moeller from the FERC, Chairman of the FERC Commission, talking
about backup wind generation. He said that--I asked the
question, so for every 5 megs, you need 4 megs of baseload in
some instances. And he said that that is correct.
So, I mean, certainly that was what Mr. Moeller at FERC had
testified before this committee.
Mr. Gramlich. I would love to have the opportunity to
perhaps provide written testimony in response to that.
Mr. Gardner. Sure. I mean, do you think he was wrong when
he said that?
Mr. Gramlich. Yes. There is a tiny incremental addition of
reserves needed to bring on new wind, and it is, in fact, no
greater than what is needed when new conventional sources are
brought onto the grid.
Mr. Gardner. Well, I would be interested in hearing if the
commissioner was correct.
Mr. Gramlich. I know him well. We will be happy to discuss,
yes.
Mr. Gardner. Mr. Weiss, do you think hydropower is a
renewable energy?
Mr. Weiss. Yes, it is.
Mr. Gardner. One of the concerns I have, in Colorado they
passed a Senate Bill 252 at the state legislature that requires
rural cooperatives to increase their renewable energy standard
to 25 percent. They get approximately 12 percent of its power
needs from WAPA, which gets tremendous amount of its power from
Federal Hydropower. That is where WAPA gets it power, Federal
Hydropower, yet none of that power is counted under the
Colorado Renewable Energy Standard because it is hydropower. It
is not considered a renewable energy resource. Do you think we
should change the law in Colorado to include Federal Hydropower
since it is a renewable energy resource in your mind?
Mr. Weiss. I would leave that to Coloradoans to decide.
Mr. Gardner. But if you were there, you would say, yes, it
is renewable?
Mr. Weiss. If I was there, I would look at the whole
panoply of resources. I think the reason----
Mr. Gardner. You just said renewable, you thought Federal
Hydropower is renewable.
Mr. Weiss. Yes. I think the reason why some people do not
consider it renewable is because there are upstream impacts
from building dams. I think what we ought to be doing is
retrofitting existing dams with much more effective turbines,
and that ought to be included as renewable.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Gentleman's time is expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. NcNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Then we have a vote on the floor, so after
his questions, we are going to terminate this rather quickly.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Wind energy comes on and off on it slowly because on a
large scale windmill, you have hundreds or maybe thousands of
large windmills over hundreds of square miles. If one or two
comes on or shuts off, it has very little impact, so over time
and over space, that impact of coming on and off is very slow
and gradual, so it doesn't really affect the grid like shutting
down a large power plant. I just wanted to make sure that I had
an opportunity to say that.
Mr. Cicio, I certainly enjoyed your testimony, but it was a
little confusing in a sense, and let me explain why. I
understand your concerns about lack of Federal oversight on
natural gas pipeline reliability, but often we hear from
industry, we hear from the other side that oversight, Federal
oversight is a problem; we need to let the market straighten
things out. So my question is, is this--do you propose the
lawmakers create regulations to keep customers safe while also
taking note of business considerations--is there a way we can
do that here? Is that too big of a broad of a----
Mr. Weiss. Remember who we are. We are consumers. We have a
different perspective. We are the companies that rely upon
reliability of that grid, and we see that there is an agency
that is overseeing electric reliability nationwide, and that is
NERC. We do not see an organization that is looking at pipeline
reliability, for example, at peak demands.
The pipelines in this country, and the regulations are very
good. What has changed is the market. The market has changed.
We have, over a 4-year period of time, significant changes to
coal-fired power generation, new natural gas coming on. We have
the industrial renaissance happening that is going to increase
natural gas demand on those same pipelines.
Mr. McNerney. So, it is from a customer's point of view,
there is a need for----
Mr. Weiss. Yes.
Mr. McNerney [continuing]. Oversight. To make sure that
these things are reliant.
Mr. Weiss. Shame on us if we don't know if there is a
pipeline reliability issue.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Weiss, in your testimony, you mentioned that climate
change causes increased instances of extreme weather events
which in turn threatens electrical reliability. Do you think
that that--we simply need to invest in better infrastructure,
or how would we best move forward to improve reliability in
face of these extreme events?
Mr. Weiss. I think we need to do two things. First, we need
to reduce the carbon pollution and other emissions that are
responsible for climate change. As I mentioned earlier, we are
making progress but not nearly fast enough to avert the worst
impacts of climate change, but second, we do need to improve
the resiliency of our infrastructure. Representative Capps has
proposed creating a commission to do that that would look at
how much money we need and identifying a dedicated source of
revenue to pay for it, and I would support that proposal.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for your brief answer.
Mr. Shelk, how much--just my own curiosity, how much of any
do coal--of gas-powered power plants, how much gas do a typical
plant keep on sight, if any?
Mr. Shelk. Obviously, gas is different from storing other
fuel.
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Mr. Shelk. Some do actually have, in the northeast, LNG
Storage, and one of reasons why New England has problems that
the rest of the country does not have is because the geology of
New England doesn't allow for gas storage. Gas is usually only
stored underground. That is Mr. Sypolt's business. The plant
itself would not store gas, per se, except in certain
situations where there are LNG facilities nearby, but many of
the plants that are gas fired are also dual fuel with oil and
so that is one of the major sources of power at peak time in
New England is the dual fuel plants.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think we can create a broad policy on
a Federal level that provides adequate flexibility to regional
overseers?
Mr. Shelk. I do. I think actually FERC is going about it
the right way. They are approaching this, as you heard in the
prior hearings, with regional hearings, technical conferences.
They are holding all of us--our feet to the fire, and I think
we do have that infrastructure.
With all due respect to Mr. Cicio, he misunderstands NERC.
NERC does not order the development of electric or gas assets,
so I would argue that NERC actually is the natural gas
reliability entity in the same way because they are drawing
attention to these issues. Their Phase II report will be out
very shortly. I think the committee can rest assured that you
have the regulators and the grid operators and all of us in the
market very, very in tune to these issues and we are going to
solve them.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thanks very much.
And that terminates today's hearing. Once we adjourn, Mr.
Shelk and Mr. Cicio can get together and talk this out. But we
appreciate the testimony that all of you gave, and we continue
to look forward to working with you on grid reliability and
integration cost.
And with that, without objection, I will enter into the
record a statement from the Natural Gas Council and the
American Public Power Association.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Whitfield. The record will remain open for 10 days, and
some of you will be receiving some additional questions. We
would appreciate your response, and so thank you, once again.
The hearing is now concluded. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82945.127