As reliability concerns grow, Democrats signal retreat from previous push to 100% renewable energy

Since 2019, nearly two dozen states — most of them blue states — have vowed to transition their grids to run without generators powered by fossil fuels within the next 24 years. 

While Democrats have often been vocal supporters of these efforts, President Donald Trump’s energy policies have produced a direct challenge to net-zero plans. Outside the political sphere, independent assessments find the nation’s grid is becoming increasingly fragile, primarily a direct result of an overreliance on weather-dependent renewables. 

This has led to a rapid shift in the conversation on energy in America. This shift was on display Tuesday during a House Energy and Commerce hearing about grid reliability during Winter Storm Fern. 

During the Biden administration, the committee hearings had Democrats championing the elimination of fossil fuels, and criticizing the Republicans for not doing more to make the grid 100% renewable. At Tuesday’s hearing, most Democrats on the committee defended the use of renewables, but they also appeared to come to terms with the reality that the U.S. electric grid simply can’t run without fossil fuels. 

Running close to the edge, a "near-miss event"

Long-term and seasonal assessment of grid reliability from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), a nonprofit tasked with assuring the reliability of the continent’s bulk power system, have grown increasingly dire in its warnings.

During Winter Storm Fern, which blanketed much of the U.S. in ice and freezing temperatures at the end of January, experts at the hearing testified that the U.S. barely escaped rolling blackouts. “The system ran very close to the edge, leaving no room for error. Operators needed every tool at their disposal, and extraordinary actions by the government played an important role. Fern was a classic near-miss event that reinforces concerns documented in our recent” long-term assessment report, James Robb, president and CEO of NERC, said. 

The NERC report found that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. is at an elevated or high risk of energy shortfalls within the next few years. Among the actions the government took to protect the grid during Fern, Robb said, were the emergency orders the Department of Energy issued, which kept online coal plants that were targeted for shutdown. 

“Natural gas, coal and nuclear resources provided most of the generation. However, renewables did contribute,” Robb said. 

Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said that it was common in the committee for those on the committee who argue for the need for dispatchable energy from fossil fuels to be accused of “defending polluters.” 

Guthrie asked Jose Costa, president and CEO of the Northeast Gas Association, a trade organization, what would happen if they didn’t have the option of natural gas during Fern. Costa said they’d either switch to oil or endure outages. 

Democrats used hearing to criticize war in Iran

While Robb and other witnesses testified that the only thing that kept the grid from collapsing was the nation’s nuclear, coal and natural gas resources, few Democrats' arguments for a complete transition entirely away from fossil fuel generation were noticeably absent. They did argue that wind and solar are important assets on the grid. 

“Every witness before us has been clear we need more of everything, whether it be transmission pipelines, solar, wind or gas. But that doesn't mean we need to keep every asset that is uneconomic or inefficient,” Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said. 

Many Democrats used the hearing to voice their objections to the war in Iran, arguing that Trump drove up oil prices with military action against the oil-producing country. Ignoring reliability issues, wind and solar, they argued, don’t have fuel costs and provide more stable pricing. 

“We should really be addressing skyrocketing oil prices all the result of Trump deciding to wage an irresponsible war in Iran. The war is throwing the region and gas prices into chaos,” Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said. 

It’s not clear how generators whose outputs vary according to weather conditions provide more stability, but Pallone wasn’t the only Democrat making the same arguments. “This committee should be laser-focused on the affordability crisis that the Trump administration has exacerbated with the President's unauthorized war with Iran,” said Rep. Rob Menendez, D-N.J., said. 

Coal provided reliable resources 

Other witnesses testified how coal and natural gas did the heavy lifting during the storm. 

Brett Mattison, president and CEO of the Southwest Electric Power Corporation — an electric utility that serves over nearly a half a million residential customers in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas — said that coal provided half the electricity during the storm, and natural gas units provided “essential flexibility.” 

The problem with natural gas, Mattison explained, is that it’s tied to a pipeline delivery system, which tightens as demand rises, as it does during cold snaps when people are using gas to heat their homes. “Wind resources contributed and supported the system, but their output varies with weather conditions and cannot substitute for around-the-clock resources,” Mattison said. 

Costa of the Northeast Gas Association said that pipelines in the Northeast U.S. recorded some of the highest flow days ever. “As supplies tighten, the pipelines continue to move significant volumes of gas to their firm gas utility customers. However, eventually they reach points where they could no longer supply gas to power plants that do not hold firm contracts,” he said. 

New England switched to burning oil for power, and at one point during the storm, the burning of trash and wood provided more electricity than renewables. The lack of adequate gas pipelines in the northeast meant that New England had to import liquefied natural gas from its ports. 

The costly imports and low supply drove up gas prices in New England 17 times higher than they were in northeastern Pennsylvania, Costa said. Northeastern Pennsylvania contains massive gas fields that could easily supply New England with cheap natural gas if there were pipelines that could transport it across the border, Costa said. 

New York and Massachusetts have aggressively fought efforts to build pipelines as part of an effort to force a transition away from fossil fuels. 

Climate change barely mentioned

Mentions of climate change were also absent from the Democrats’ statements and questions. Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., was an exception. “Climate change is an extreme threat to the grid, not to mention every other aspect of our lives. Wildfires are the biggest threat in California. They're also the biggest driver of electricity prices,” Matsui said. 

When Matsui asked Robb if he considered the role of fossil fuels in driving extreme weather and threatening the grid, Robb said he had no opinion on that. Matsui then asked if part of NERC’s job is to stop climate change. 

“No, our mission is to preserve the reliability of the bulk power system,” Robb replied. 

It’s possible that Democrats are seeing that voters are much more concerned with the cost and reliability of their energy, and so legislators are responding to pressure from constituents.