The Dakota Access Pipeline has been the heart of several controversial issues, including tribal sovereignty and risks to drinking water. This IEEFA article explains that the project may also be a very high-risk economic investment.
The article concludes that:
“If oil prices remain low, as currently projected, Bakken oil production will continue to decline, and existing pipeline and refinery capacity in the Bakken will be more than adequate to handle the region’s oil production. And if production continues to fall, the Dakota Access Pipeline will become a stranded asset—one rushed to completion largely to protect the favorable contract terms its developers negotiated in 2014.”
Read full article here.
A refreshing report published by the Overseas Development Institute this month concludes that:
“The evidence is clear: a lasting solution to poverty requires the world’s wealthiest economies to renounce coal, and we can and must end extreme poverty without the precipitous expansion of new coal power in developing ones.”
Read the full report here.
EIA projections missed unprecedented growth in solar PV installations and a sharp downturn in coal production over the last decade.
For a more detailed analysis of inaccuracy in the EIA’s projections, see CEA’s white paper on the topic here.
Policymakers, utility commissions, investors, and energy companies rely on the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) data for a wide range of energy analyses and while the historical data provided by the EIA has been extremely useful in many arenas, the EIA’s projections of future trends are often far from accurate. Our research summarizes a few examples of previously reported inaccuracies in EIA projections (for example, here, here, and here), but also provides what we believe to be the first look at the EIA’s inaccurate projections of U.S. coal production in almost a decade.
The projections published in the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) have invariably overestimated the cost of renewable electricity generation and fallen sadly short of predicting new additions of wind and solar capacity. For example, Figure 1 shows that the projections published in the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook repeatedly underestimated U.S. utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity from 2011 to 2015 and continue to predict that solar installations will largely stall through about 2025.
In reality, however, solar PV capacity is growing at an unprecedented rate. The Solar Energy Industries Association reported that by the third quarter of 2016, the cumulative U.S. utility-scale solar PV capacity (including capacity which was under contract but not yet operating) exceeded the AEO2015 projection for capacity in 2039. Accounting for planned capacity which had been announced but was not yet under contract by Q3 2016 indicates that utility-scale solar PV capacity will soon far surpass all AEO projections for 2040.
In addition to missing the sharp rise in solar photovoltaic installations, EIA projections also missed a dramatic downturn in coal production over the last decade. They failed to pick up on the trend year after year and still predict flat or rising coal production through 2040, as shown in Figure 2.
Disruptive innovations tend to precipitate new market trends that are notoriously difficult to predict. Just as the invention of the personal computer led to an abrupt decline in the typewriter industry in the late 1900’s, a massive transition toward renewable resources is transforming U.S. energy markets and so far EIA projections have failed to keep up with this transition. Every year, EIA forecasts predict a return to the trends of the 90’s, but the technological and political landscapes surrounding the U.S. energy industry are changing rapidly and historical precedent suggests that energy markets may never return to those of past decades.
For more details, readers are encouraged to download the full CEA White Paper here.
In a decision yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected a proposed fee from Tri-State Generation and Transmission that would have acted as a serious barrier to rural electric utilities like Delta-Montrose (located in West-central Colorado) from accessing local clean energy by making it uneconomical.
This decision is expected to help communities across the West develop their own local sources of clean, affordable energy – creating jobs, reducing emissions, and investing in local economies!
In March, Clean Energy Action and its supporters submitted a petition, joining approximately 120 individuals and organizations led by Delta-Montrose to urge the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to protect rural access to clean, affordable energy.
On June 16th, FERC responded, rejecting Tri-State’s penalty because it would “undermine the Commission’s prior order in Delta-Montrose” by making the cost of accessing local clean energy prohibitively high.
In FERC’s previous Tri-State and Delta-Montrose decision (last year’s Delta-Montrose proceeding) the Commission ruled that Delta-Montrose was not only allowed but obligated to purchase electricity from qualifying local renewable energy facilities. In its decision, FERC relied on the 1978 Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), which seeks to “encourage cogeneration and small power production” from renewables.
In turn, Tri-State responded by attempting to impose a penalty to recover revenues it claimed would be lost if rural communities began to rely on local sources of clean energy.
FERC ruled that the proposed lost revenue penalty “should be rejected” because it “undermine[s] the Commission’s prior order finding that, under PURPA, Delta-Montrose must purchase” energy from qualifying local facilities.
In doing so, the Commission has essentially reaffirmed and clarified last year’s decision that local access to clean energy should be prioritized and protected. This anxiously-awaited decision is widely seen as an important step forward for communities working to developing local sources of wind, solar, and geothermal!
Clean Energy Action has questioned the practice of making long-term continued investments in coal-fired power plants for years. These concerns are driven by several factors including carbon dioxide emissions which in many states make coal plants the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, emission of pollutants like mercury and sulfur dioxide, increasingly unfavorable economics, and the uncertainty of future coal prices and supplies.
The price of coal has changed greatly over the last two decades. This volatility puts continued investments in coal-fired power plants at risk of becoming stranded assets – assets that have suffered from unanticipated or premature write-downs, devaluations or conversion to liabilities. Rather than adding pollution control equipment or other investments to keep coal plants online, regulators and utilities should consider making plans to phase out coal power.
Coal plants can’t operate without a stable supply of coal over their entire lifetime, which means that the long-term stability of coal prices and supplies are essential to the solvency of a coal plant investment. In 2013, CEA published a detailed analysis of historical coal prices in each U.S. state to gain insight into their stability. The study revealed that prices rose steadily over the preceding decade, thereby continually increasing costs for coal based utilities.
In light of the recent coal industry bankruptcies, we updated this report to include more recent data and found that instability in the coal industry was paralleled by decreasing coal prices and persistently rising production costs, resulting in dangerously low profit margins. Our analyses indicate that utility commissions, utilities, and political leaders should seriously consider the unpredictable nature of fossil fuel markets when making decisions about long-term energy investments. Our findings point to the long-term economic benefits of investing in “free fuel” renewable energy resources such as wind and solar that have stable and affordable prices.