While the piece argued its strawman positions vehemently, it certainly was not arguing against any position held by serious advocates of electric utility reform. The notion that clean energy and resilience advocates want to “eliminate the conventional power grid” is utterly fantastical.
We have argued the exact opposite: that Entergy should be investing in the transmission and distribution systems, and that it should stop the stonewalling tactics it has used to constrain transmission of cheap renewable energy to our state, rather than investing in costly projects such as the New Orleans Power Station, which do not perform as promised and do not increase resilience in the wake of tropical storm systems.
The editorial fails to provide any context for the current state of Entergy’s transmission system in our state, such as the fact that Entergy was within the past decade the subject of a federal investigation into its anti-competitive practices around transmission, and that it joined a regional transmission organization, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, as a result. Entergy has spent considerable effort and resources since that time attempting to obstruct meaningful expansion of transmission to our state.
The editors question the affordability of renewable energy and battery storage, but fail to pose the critical question: Is our current system affordable? Is continuing to prop up the same, fossil fuel-dependent system year after year through storm recovery riders affordable? Tropical storm systems are increasing in frequency and intensity due to our continuing reliance on fossil fuels – such as methane, or “natural gas” – for electricity generation. Abandoning the electrical grid is absurd, but the transition to a renewable, more resilient grid is a necessity, not an option.
