Show-Me Energy: Decommissioning Power Plants Part 2
The decommissioning of coal plants is happening across the nation. Senate Bill (SB) 757 would mandate that prior to closing an electricity-generating power plant, there needs to be a new power plant ready to replace it with equal or greater nameplate capacity This bill is being proposed as an attempt to try to smoothen this energy transition for Missouri consumers. In the near future, many Missouri plants such as Rush Island in Jefferson County (2024), Sioux in St. Charles County (2032), and Labadie in Franklin County (half 2036, half 2042) will be taken offline (The years in parentheses signify Ameren’s preferred timeline to close these plants.)
If you clicked on this post without reading Part 1, I encourage you to go back and read Part 1. In that post, I defined some of the energy jargon used in this debate. This post will focus on the provisions of SB 757.
Does SB 757 address capacity factor and dispatchability?
The bill does not explicitly mention capacity factor or dispatchability. Here is a passage from the bill text:
The new replacement reliable electric generation shall be equal to or greater than the full nameplate capacity of any existing electric generating power plant and shall be certified as an equal or greater amount of reliable electric generation by the Missouri public service commission and the regional reliability organization in which the electric utility company operates. (emphasis added)
Unless the public service commission comes up with its own system of power accreditation, it seems this bill will hinge on the actions of our regional reliability organizations.
While I will not go into all of the specific details, the two main regional energy organizations in Missouri—Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP)—have outlined their resource accreditation process for rating power sources and individual power plants (you can read MISO’s method here). MISO’s plan “informs long-term investment and retirement decisions by accurately representing the capacity value of a resource in the prompt year.”
What a statement like that means is that MISO (and SPP also) account for capacity factor and value on the grid by examining different yearly, monthly, and daily variables—all with declared intentions to “maintain reliability.”
However, we should still be cautious, as utilities also can miscalculate or serve other agendas. For example, California has dramatically increased its amount of renewable energy sources in the past 10 years, which now account for up to 42% of its net electricity generation. In the same timeframe, California has cut its nuclear supply by over half, down to 8%. As a result, the dispatchability problem has reared its ugly head in recent years, as in 2020 California had power outages due to insufficient energy for the first time in over 20 years. Sadly, 2020 wasn’t the end of California’s power struggles, as problems have continued. California’s regional reliability organization, California Independent System Operator (CAISO), has even at times called for residents to “use less power between 4 and 9 p.m.” Whether it was due to miscalculation or prioritizing other agendas, Californians are struggling because of a lack of dispatchability and reliability.
That brings me to my main questions concerning SB 787. Can Missouri citizens confidently rely on these regional reliability organizations (MISO, SPP) to protect their energy needs? Will these organizations continue to prioritize both capacity and dispatchability? Is there a way to ensure that other agendas are not prioritized over our energy needs?
On its face, this bill appears to add protection for Missourians, but these questions are worth answering. If there is any possible room for interpretation, shouldn’t it be made clear that both nameplate capacity and dispatchability must be taken into account?
