Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Glenn's avatar

You have to be careful in making assumptions using generation data from EIA. PNM and EPE have contracts to sell a good deal of nuclear energy generated in Arizona. PNM said they got 24% of the energy from nuclear in 2024. And 3 TW or more of wind energy generated in NM is under contract to be sold to consumers in other states like AZ and CA. And roughly 80% of the coal power generated in Fruitland NM (the only operating coal plant in the state) is exported to AZ.

NM is indeed a powerhouse of energy generation. We are also a huge exporter of energy. The ETA drives the energy we use within the state, not exports. Because of this the ETA-qualified percentage of renewables may be lower than 59% if you account for imports and exports. Regardless, NM is a national leader in clean energy and PNM is clearly ahead of the requirements of the ETA. We should absolutely celebrate where we are and where we are going!

Also be careful using utility rates from national databases. There are significant errors there.

And if coal is a "base load" generation resource (meaning that it runs all the time) then why would it be less relevant when air conditioners run less? Gas is the flexible power source so I think we'd use less gas in proportion, and hence more coal in proportion, when overall consumption decreases. This goes for nuclear as well.

Denise Fort's avatar

What do you think about Project Jupiter's planned use of natural gas rather than renewables? Did the legislature and the Governor understand the implications of exempting "microgrids" from the ETA? Thanks for your work.

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?