By  KC Golden| Special to The Seattle Times

As power-hungry data centers seek to expand and we electrify our vehicles and buildings, warnings about looming electricity shortfalls are growing louder. The concern is real, but much of the recent commentary overemphasizes manageable, moderate risks while ignoring more urgent and costly ones. Weakening clean energy laws to allow more gas power plants, as some have proposed, would throw us from the frying pan into the fire.

Many of these warnings cite the January 2024 cold snap, which strained the electrical grid’s capacity, as a cautionary example. We didn’t fall short of power during that event, but we narrowly avoided “rolling blackouts” — power interruptions that typically last 60-90 minutes to keep supply and demand in balance. Power providers build the electric grid with extra “reserve” capacity so these emergency measures are rarely needed.

But while that specter — a near miss of scheduled power interruptions — is being used to lobby for more gas, much more serious power outages have actually occurred. Last December, nearly 1 million Washingtonians lost power for up to four days due to wind and flooding from an extreme storm that had “the fingerprints of climate change” all over it. Like most power outages, this one was caused by damage to distribution systems, not power supply shortfalls. Building power plants powered by fossil fuels makes these storms and the associated power failures worse, by stoking the climate heating that exacerbates extreme weather.

Another recent catastrophe — the heat dome of 2021 — was amplified and made vastly more likely by climate disruption. It directly or indirectly caused over 400 deaths in Washington. Europe recorded 10,000 excess deaths in this June’s heat wave. As climate change intensifies wildfires, mortality from acute pulmonary impacts increases, while everyone who breathes suffers worsening health effects. As I write, over 100 million Americans are breathing smoke-filled air. Energy choices that prolong fossil fuel dependence make these events more dangerous and costly.

So why do these real catastrophes seem to get less attention from energy providers than hypothetical and manageable power shortfalls?

In the excellent book “Fire Weather,” John Vaillant describes the “Lucretius Effect”: We misperceive risks that are outside our normal frame of reference. I might also suggest a “Serenity Prayer Effect”: In the face of terrible climate news, we seek “serenity to accept the things we cannot change,” forgetting that the prayer also calls for courage to change the things we can and wisdom to know the difference.

Why do we jump to serenity and bypass courage and wisdom?

Because climate disruption is too damned big — scary, depressing and seemingly beyond our power to make a difference. Politics plays a big role too: We see climate change through the distorting lens of political gamesmanship and oil industry deception, rather than the clear, harsh light of objective reality. Many political consultants advise candidates to avoid the topic altogether.

But physics doesn’t play politics. The consequences of fossil fuel dependence are upon us. To respond effectively, we need an accurate sense of proportion about the risks associated with our energy decisions. We cannot afford “solutions” to manageable energy challenges that make climate disruption unmanageable.

This is not to advocate complacency in the face of a prospective energy crunch. It’s a pressing challenge and we need to tackle it. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council, on which I serve as a representative of Washington, is charged with delivering a regional power plan that minimizes costs, balances risks, and maintains a high standard of power resource adequacy.

Because our council represents Washington, Idaho, Oregon and Montana, our plan will require compromise. Some gas will be in the mix — probably more than Washington would like. But we will also propose cost-effective solutions like energy conservation, renewable power, battery storage and “demand response” measures that give consumers more control over energy costs. Our plan will abide by state policies, including Washington’s clean energy laws. I invite everyone who cares about energy affordability and reliability to help us develop the best possible plan — one that delivers on our climate commitments instead of undermining them. We expect to issue a draft regional power and conservation plan soon. We welcome your comments; learn more at st.news/power.

KC Golden: directed Washington’s Energy Policy Office in the mid-1990s and has served in a variety of nonprofit positions supporting climate solutions. He represents Washington on the NW Power and Conservation Council.

Seattle Times Opinion: Energy reliability is what we need to talk about when it comes to power