FirstEnergy Should Brush Up on Definition of ‘Diversity’
‘Fuel diversity’ is a term that’s been thrown around a lot recently, especially as an excuse for FirstEnergy’s bailout request. Striving for a diverse set of resources relies on the notion that if one generator – be it natural gas, nuclear, or whatever – isn’t available, you’ve got plenty of other options for back up. Sounds reasonable.
But all resources were not created equally. Some are expensive, inefficient, and outdated. Others are more affordable and don’t spew pollution into the air. Can you guess which category FirstEnergy’s plants fall into?
Furthermore, Ohio’s existing generation mix could hardly be considered diverse. Coal supplies 58 percent of the state’s electricity, natural gas 25 percent, nuclear 15 percent, and renewables only 2 percent. So when FirstEnergy is trying to save resources that already make up a whopping 73 percent of the state’s mix, how exactly is that guaranteeing diversity?
Let’s see what the grid operator, PJM Interconnection, has to say about FirstEnergy’s proposal:
-
“[It] will have no meaningful impact on the diversity of resources that serve Ohioans. ‘Fuel diversity’ as used by FirstEnergy means nothing more than inefficiently prolonging the life of aging, risky and undesirable units. Subsidizing resources with characteristics that the market does not value is not in the public interest.”
Unless! Maybe FirstEnergy was talking about diversity in terms of profitability. In that case, approving the bailout would ensure the state maintains both profitable and unprofitable power plants. Diversity achieved.
|