4A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2018
editor@dailyastorian.com
KARI BORGEN
Publisher
JIM VAN NOSTRAND
Editor
Founded in 1873
JEREMY FELDMAN
Circulation Manager
DEBRA BLOOM
Business Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN
Production Manager
CARL EARL
Systems Manager
PRO-CON
VS.
AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian
Oil derricks near the La
Paloma Generating Sta-
tion in McKittrick, Calif.
Associated Press
Wind turbines in the
Columbia River Gorge.
Should the U.S. bail out
failing energy producers?
PRO: They are America’s aces in the
hole in a competitive energy world
CON: Spending millions on bailouts
will send consumer bills soaring
T
W
AMPA, Fla. — The key to ample
supplies of energy resources rests
with which are sustainable and
which are not.
While oil and gas may be abundant
now, that does not mean these fossil
fuels will be all that
available in the future.
Wind energy, of
course, does not carry all
the environmental risks
associated with oil and
gas, and the presence
of wind is pretty much
Wayne
eternal.
Madsen
If safety measures are
strictly followed, car-
bon-free nuclear energy is also a viable
option — especially as the horrors of
Chernobyl fade into the past.
For years, the oil and natural gas indus-
tries have benefited from generous federal
government subsidies. Why should the
wind and nuclear industries, now in need
of similar subsidies, be any different?
The simple answer is that they should
receive the same degree of concern by
Congress and the Trump administration as
the politically well-connected oil, gas and
coal industries.
Renewable energy sectors like wind
and nuclear employ some 500,000 people
around the United States.
If jobs are of interest to the White
House and Congress, a high priority
should be afforded to the half-million
employees — located in every state — in
the wind and nuclear industries as is
extended to oil and gas workers in a
dozen states that include Texas, Louisiana
and Oklahoma.
Workers at hundreds of factories that
produce wind turbines could lose their
jobs if the wind energy sector collapses.
Furthermore, the nuclear power
industry currently provides one-fifth of
America’s energy, hardly a trifling per-
centage. Nuclear energy alone accounts
for half of Illinois’s energy production.
As far as safety is concerned, horizontal
hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has
been responsible for far more damage to
the environment than either the wind or
nuclear sectors.
The worst-case situation for the U.S.
nuclear industry, the 1979 Three Mile
Island nuclear reactor accident, did far
less damage to Pennsylvania than the
pollution of groundwater aquifers in the
state caused by the fracking industry.
Attempts to bail out Pennsylvania’s
ASHINGTON — It may seem
faltering nuclear energy sector met with
that Americans don’t agree on
fierce opposition from state capital frack-
much these days, but just about
ing lobbyists in Harrisburg, who have
everyone agrees that government interven-
managed to ensure that a nuclear energy
tion in electricity markets is a bad idea.
bailout package is dead-on-arrival.
From The Wall Street Journal to the
Against such lobbying efforts, a fed-
Los Angeles Times, electric grid operators
to economic analysts,
eral assistance boost to wind and nuclear
natural gas producers
energy in Pennsylvania and other states
to renewable energy
is critical.
advocates, Democrats to
Federal tax credits have boosted the
Republicans — it’s hard
renewable energy sector to a degree not
to find anyone who sup-
seen with their fossil fuel counterparts.
ports bailing out unprof-
Considering the environmental dam-
itable coal and nuclear
age caused by fossil fuel exploitation,
Todd
plants at the expense of
Snitchler
wind and nuclear energy should receive
consumers.
the same degree of federal government
But the Trump admin-
support as that given to the lobbyist-in-
istration is considering a proposal to do
just that.
tensive fossil fuel industry.
First, some background. The United
Also, the world’s supply of oil and
States
leads the world in natural gas
natural gas is finite. Fossil fuels are
production,
and the resource’s ready
simply not renewable. Mexico, a major
availability
and
advantages as a fuel
oil producer, saw its Cantarell field reach
source have made it an appealing choice
peak production in 2004. Saudi Arabia
for electricity providers.
and Kuwait have concluded that their
So much so that it’s become the
own oil reserves are in decline.
leading source of power generation in
Because of that, the governments of
the United States, powering nearly one
the Persian Gulf region have started to
in three homes and delivering a win-
diversify their economies.
win situation for consumers and power
generators.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
On the consumer side, clean natural
Emirates are investing in nuclear. The
gas-supplied power has
first Arab nuclear
lowered utility costs for
reactor was completed
homes and businesses
The
Daily
Astorian
is
try-
this past March in
while driving carbon
ing
out
some
new
things
Abu Dhabi, the UAE’s
emissions to 25-year
capital. The Saudis also
for its opinion page. Do
lows.
are developing a wind
you like this topic-based,
On the power pro-
plant in northwest Saudi
ducer side, natural gas
pro-con feature?
Arabia and plan to have
has enhanced the reli-
Let us know at editor@
renewables produce 9.5
ability and resilience of
dailyastorian.com.
America’s electric power
gigawatts of energy by
system.
2023.
Bottom line: Natural
When the Saudis
gas
has
earned
its
share
in power markets,
begin to deal with running out of oil,
and
those
markets
are
succeeding
in
why shouldn’t the United States take
providing affordable, reliable electricity to
heed of the problem?
consumers.
Reliance on substitute renewable
It’s a clear case of “if it ain’t broke,
energy sources like wind and nuclear
don’t fix it.” Only unprofitable coal and
is the only feasible alternative to fossil
nuclear plants, struggling to compete with
fuels. It makes sense for the federal
ascendant natural gas, disagree. Rather
government, working in partnership with
than compete fair-and-square in the free
market, nuclear and coal companies are
the states and private industry, to focus
seeking bailouts in several states and now
its attention on boosting the renewable
at the national level.
energy sector, especially when it is fac-
U.S. homes and businesses should
ing financial decline.
not have to pay to prop up specific fuel
Wayne Madsen is a progressive com-
sources, but a new study shows they could
mentator whose writings have appeared in
be on the hook for up to $17 billion per
U.S. and European newspapers.
year – whether in taxes or higher electric-
ity rates — if bailouts move forward.
U.S. manufacturers, who have enjoyed
an economy-boosting renaissance thanks
to affordable energy, are under no illu-
sions about the impact.
When the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission considered and rejected
bailouts earlier this year, a coalition of
manufacturers — including the American
Iron and Steel Institute, Electricity
Consumers Resource Council and
American Forest & Paper Association
— argued that subsidizing “coal and
nuclear generation and their jobs” would
“increase the electricity costs by many
millions of dollars for untold numbers
of businesses and consumers ... putting
at risk a far larger number of U.S. man-
ufacturing jobs that face considerable
pressure from foreign competition.”
That’s a lot of cost, and at what
benefit?
Bailout supporters argue everything
from grid reliability to national security
as justification for subsidies. But power
grid operators themselves have shot
down those claims.
PJM Interconnection, which manages
power markets in 13 states, has stated:
“This is not an issue of reliability ...
Nothing we have seen to date indicates
that an emergency would result from the
generator retirements.”
On top of cost increases, forcing oper-
ators to make their fuel purchases based
on government mandates, not on what’s
best for consumers, would set a troubling
precedent.
As the Washington Post editorial
board recently pointed out, if the Trump
administration implements subsidies
for coal and nuclear plants, “it would be
hard to stop the next Democratic presi-
dent from, say, using emergency powers
to force the purchase of renewables at
the expense of coal, oil and natural gas.”
That’s one of many unintended con-
sequences we risk when the government
starts picking winners and losers in the
market.
America’s power system will continue
to rely on multiple fuels — including
natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, wind and
solar — for decades.
But it’s the competitive market, not
government intervention, that is the best
approach to ensure the optimal mix to keep
delivering affordable, reliable power to
American families and businesses.
Todd Snitchler is group director of mar-
ket development at the American Petroleum
Institute and a leading expert on environ-
mental regulations.