By Brittany Hjelte
The Oregon Legislature has mandated that large utilities deliver 100% emissions-free electricity by 2040. Since coal and natural gas account for more than 45% of Oregon’s electricity generation, replacing those fuels with emission-free alternatives will be difficult.
Moreover, the closer Oregon gets to 100% reduction, the more expensive it will get. This challenge stems from the fact that the two preferred power sources – industrial-scale wind and solar – are weather dependent. This will require over-building, plus batteries and back-up power supplies. Estimates suggest that achieving the final 1% of decarbonization in the Northwest may require expenditure of between $100 billion and $170 billion.
As Oregon adds more wind and solar facilities, the effect of decreasing marginal returns becomes stronger. Each additional unit of reduction produces progressively smaller environmental benefits relative to cost. In simpler terms, it costs more to receive less. If we ever hit 99% reduction, the cost of the final 1% will escalate dramatically, offering minimal benefit at a towering expense.
Given the lack of a cost-effective solution and the uncertainty of its necessity, the commitment to achieving 100% reduction is questionable. Fully eliminating emissions may not justify the steep payment. Instead of blindly pursuing decarbonization polices, Oregon should promote an adaptable, feasible approach to electricity generation before committing to a costly 100% reduction path for carbon dioxide emissions.
Brittany Hjelte is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD
Dear Brittany,
You are certainly correct that electric power companies in Oregon face “Rising Costs and Diminishing Returns” in their pursuit of “100% emission-free electricity.”
But I would put “100% emission-free electricity” in quotes, because it is far from true. The manufacture, installation, and maintenance of wind and solar systems requires vast amounts of energy, cost, and environmental damage that are merely out-of-sight. Then backup of very intermittent wind and solar requires inefficient quick-start natural gas plants, very inefficient and costly pumped storage, or horribly expensive battery storage, Hydro is already over-committed in this regard.
We need to be careful NOT to inadvertently promote what is clearly fraudulent by repeating promotional terminology that always seeks to portray inefficient and environmentally damaging “solutions” to non-existent problems as desirable, simple, cheap, and problem-free. They are not.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA