An Equitable Transition to Renewable Energy
Fossil Fuel Power Plant Deadlines Can Guide
An Equitable Transition to Renewable Energy
There are at least two major issues in the transition of the United States from dependence on fossil fuels to non-polluting renewable energy. The first is the economics and infrastructure of a renewable energy program. This will require investment in renewable energy power plants of various types and expansion of or advancement in battery technology. The second is the economic and human impact of the subsequent retirement of fossil fuel power plants. To respond meaningfully to the imperative of managing CO2 and other polluting emissions, it will be necessary to close fossil fuel power plants as renewable energy plants come on-line. Individuals and communities will be seriously affected by these closures, so this must be done in a way that ensures the well-being of people whose livelihood depends upon these plants and the well-being of the communities affected by their closure. An economic change of this magnitude will affect the tax structure and the economics of the communities in which these plants are located. Advance planning will be required to give communities adequate time to adapt.
An article in the journal Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.abe0375), by Emily Grubert, examined this issue quantitatively and concluded that a 2035 deadline for decarbonizing US electricity would permit 85% of these plants to close at their anticipated life spans and strand – i.e., close earlier than expected - only 15% of fossil capacity-years and 20% of job-years. This burden is low by global standards and could be managed by federal funding for new jobs and relocations for people and communities affected by those forced closures. There will be up to fifteen years advance notice of the impending closures since all power plants have a retirement date that is part of the business plan. Some plants continue to generate power past that date if there are no alternatives, but with a renewable energy planning process in place, all plants could be closed on or about their retirement dates as long as alternate energy is available. A 2035 electricity decarbonization deadline was proposed by President Biden [https://joebiden.com/clean-energy].
The current pollution burden and local economic benefits from these plants both are enormous. According to Grubert:
“In 2018, 10,435 fossil fuel–fired generators produced 63% of U.S. electricity with 841 GW of capacity. They also emitted 1.9 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (GtCO2), 1.3 Mt of nitrogen oxides (MtNOx), and 1.4 Mt of sulfur dioxide (MtSO2), while consuming 3.2 billion m3 of water for plant operations and fuel extraction. These facilities operated in 1248 of 3141 counties, directly employed about 157,000 people at generators and fuel-extraction facilities and paid sometimes locally meaningful taxes.”
The challenge in this plan is to understand which generators will have completed their anticipated life span before the imposed deadline. The calculated life span appears to be consistent across the country with steam turbine-based generators at about 50 years and other generators at 30 years. With this knowledge, it is possible to determine when specific plants could be closed without undue burden to communities. Their retirement dates would be known well in advance and appropriate planning could be done by all parties involved. Since these numbers are averages, some plants will run longer, and it may be necessary to close them on their retirement dates in order to maintain scheduled shifts to renewable energy. This will require a mechanism for the government to intervene to manage debt or equity obligations to the investors and lenders. But, since the retirement dates are known well in advance, this should not be difficult.
For this plan to work, explicit deadlines for fossil fuel plant retirement must be established and promulgated widely. Not only plant managers and employees must be aware, but the communities in which the plants reside must be fully aware as well. According to Grubert, in the large majority of cases (73%) the deadlines could be at or later than expected and still be within the 2035 target. This deadline would strand 15% of fossil fuel capacity life and about 20% of jobs. Since this is not a large number, it should be possible to limit the scope of financial liabilities because these plants would have more than a decade for planning if such a policy were enacted before 2025.
Some of these closures may require financial aid from the federal or state governments. Even if such aid is not needed, a firm deadline will permit deployment of training resources, long-term budgeting by local government, and transitioning of employees to other jobs.
In addition to plant closures, there must be a commitment to minimize, or even proscribe, the building of new fossil fuel plants since these will have to be shut down before the end of their useful lives. New alternative energy generating capacity must be brought on-line concurrent with the shutting down of fossil fuel plants or, if necessary, existing plants kept in function in certain places in order to avoid power losses such as those experienced by California during the past summer of wildfires. All of this will require large-scale planning and the political will and support to carry it out. Implementation must include not only the considerations given above, but also planning for the social and economic well-being of communities and satellite industries that will be affected.
This is a major and complex undertaking but necessary if we, as a society, are to address climate change and its ramifications in a meaningful way.