Are massive blackouts at the end of the carbon-free rainbow?
We seem to be headed for a major collision between physics, engineering, and economics on the one hand and climate change virtue signaling on the other.
One of the very first acts taken by the DFL “trifecta” when they took power in January 2023 in Minnesota was to pass a mandate for “carbon-free” electricity by 2040 (SF4/HF7).
As Session Daily described the bill at the time:
It would require utilities doing business in the state to use entirely carbon-free sources for electricity production by 2040. And that means pushing the accelerator on the use of solar and wind energy within the state.
To give you an idea of the speed at which this legislation flew through, the bill was first introduced on January 2, passed both houses by February 2, and was signed by Gov. Tim Walz on February 7. In legislative terms, that was lighting speed.
The bill was not without controversy. The bill passed the state House after an all-night debating session, on a strict party-line basis of 70-60. Republicans dubbed it “the blackout bill.” It passed the state Senate by a single vote (34-33).
The heart of the bill has now been incorporated into state statute as M.S. Chapter 216B.1691 subd. 2g. It states that:
each electric utility must generate or procure sufficient electricity generated from a carbon-free energy technology to provide the electric utility’s retail customers in Minnesota.
“Carbon-free” is defined, for the most part, as nuclear, wind and solar power. Large investor-owned utilities must get to 80 percent “carbon-free” by 2030. For other utilities (cooperatives, municipals, etc.) the 2030 minimum is only 60 percent. But by 2035, all utilities must reach 90 percent and 100 percent by 2040.
There are no exceptions listed for meeting the standard.
As I mentioned before, the state’s largest electric utility, Xcel Energy, boasts of already achieving a “carbon-free” content of 64 percent for their regional (upper Midwest) operation. Xcel is aided by the fact they, and only they, own nuclear power plants in the state.
But the capital-intensive electric utility industry is notorious for long lead-times for planning and construction. In industry terms, five years from now is yesterday, the cake is already baked.
The utility claims to have a plan to reach the 2040 mandate, at least on paper, one which inexplicably relies on the now-forbidden fuel, natural gas, and a new category, “storage,” which does not currently exist. Here is the plan:
[Source: Xcel Energy, Figure 1-1, Chapter 1, page 4, Feb. 1, 2024]
In the year 2040, Xcel’s power plant mix still includes 20 percent natural gas. What part of “must,” “carbon-free,” and “100 percent” does Xcel not understand? Their plan, on its face, appears laughably non-compliant.
How does Xcel plan to comply? You can imagine my excitement in reading Appendix N of their plan. It assumes massive additions to renewable energy resources will automatically occur. Then an “accounting” (their word) exercise will take place.
“Renewable energy credits (REC’s)” are mentioned as a backup plan. But the statute speaks of “electricity” with no mention of “credits.”
But the utility puts its real faith in the following (Appx. N, page 5):
Key phrase, “partial compliance.” In other words, should all else fail, the utility is counting on a bureaucratic bailout.
Based on my prior experience, I fear that the utility’s faith is misplaced. Some advocates point to a different clause in statute as the ultimate safety value, subd. 2b. This language gives the Commission power “to modify or delay” a mandate.
But this language has been in state law for more than 20 years, back to the halcyon days when Minnesota was subject to the relatively benign, voluntary, renewable energy “objective.” Over the decades, the Commission has turned back every effort to invoke this clause.
Good luck!