Donnelly: Utility must make reliability, affordability priorities

For full disclosure, I have three decades of professional experience in energy planning. I entered that industry in the 1980s as regulatory restructuring of the U.S. energy system began. New rules introduced greater competition and diversity in available resources.

Over the years, utility portfolios met demand with optimum mixes designed for reliability and least cost. Utilities achieved the best of all worlds by integrating firm fossil-fueled, hydro and nuclear resources with interruptible wind and solar, and, where feasible, geothermal power.

Efficient natural gas-fired peakers and baseload plants, such as Clark’s River Road facility, secured reliability and flexibility near load centers. Location within the service territory was crucial to minimize line losses, transmission risks and system stability.

Environmental benefits were achieved but not at the expense of reliability or affordability. During those decades, U.S. carbon emissions dropped as expanding natural gas production displaced oil- and coal-fired power.

Utility resource plans must return to making reliability and affordability top priorities. Utilities, whether public or private, are awarded an exclusive franchise (aka monopoly) in exchange for reliable, affordable service to every customer, 365 days of the year, for every hour.

Failing those standards, vulnerable customers may come to great harm, even die. Industrial customers may relocate to find better service, hurting local workers.

With Clean Energy Transformation Act’s mandates, the state now upends the essential pact between utility and customer, placing carbon policy first.

On Feb. 26, Clark Public Utilities planning staff, at a community forum, walked through its analysis of long-term projected loads and resources. To comply with the Clean Energy Transformation Act, Clark Public Utilities plans to sharply reduce its reliance on its River Road natural gas firm capacity. Doing so will create a shortfall in firm power needed to meet peaks in 2030 and beyond, even as demand peaks are projected to grow in both summer and winter.

Clark Public Utilities’ alternatives to fill the capacity gap have risks of effectiveness, availability, cost, technology readiness and/or timing. Buying more intermittent wind and solar when all other utilities are doing the same will be expensive and not reliable. Battery solutions are yet to be developed. New efficiency programs may be costly and ineffective. Relying upon BPA just adds another layer of uncertainty.

The next governor, the Legislature and the utility commission must address these risks.