GROTON, Conn. — Electric retailers have made progress in moving away from the cutthroat price competition that shaved margins, but restrictions on billing and metering and “organizational inertia” continue to be challenges, a panel told the New England Energy Conference and Exposition last week.
Cullen Hay, general manager of Direct Energy’s residential operations in the Northeast and Midwest, said his company used acquisitions to grow in the past, as it joined other electric retailers in seeking price-conscious customers even as their costs went up. Power suppliers have fewer barriers to prevent customer attrition than cable TV suppliers, telecommunication companies or banks, he said.
“We all kind of lived under the same mantra that as one customer came in the front door, one customer would walk out the back door,” he said.
Over the last three years, however, electric retailers have begun to increase their customer engagement by offering additional services such as home warranties and rooftop solar, he said. “These are not gimmicks. These are the value-added things that the telecom industry found successful when they were handed a deregulated market,” he said.
“The new wave of the industry is knowledge …. Our mission statement is getting our consumers the information they need to make really intelligent decisions. And that goes with consumption-reduction tools like [the] Nest [thermostat] and online portals that allows them to see what their consumption looks like, what their community’s consumption patterns look like” to identify inefficient appliances and make informed decisions.
“That’s the retail, residential industry in the next five years. And it’s already happening.”
Progress, Challenges in Pursuit of C&I Customers
High capacity and transmission costs in regions such as PJM and New England are leading more commercial and industrial customers to welcome companies offering to improve efficiency in return for a share of the cost savings, said Dean Musser, CEO of Tangent Energy Solutions.
“The power customers [are] out there pushing and pushing for ways to innovate. And it’s up to us in this industry to capture that innovation,” he said.
Michael Volpe, who heads SunEdison’s distributed generation business in PJM, said electric retailers could be doing better among C&I customers if not for “organizational inertia.”
“In my experience most energy buyers have a lot of technical acumen but are hesitant to pursue things that they may perceive to be risky due to the long-term nature” of the payback, he said.
The choice, he said, is “getting into the offices of the CFO and sharing how the energy opportunity set has broadened [or] giving the power [to lower-ranking employees] to promote it up” the corporate chain.
Smart Grid Unfulfilled
Musser said the industry and its customers are not getting the full benefits of the billions invested in smart meters.
Philadelphia’s PECO Energy has smart meters for every C&I customer, he said. “But the data is not available until a day later. And if you want a pulse to get the data right away, [it costs] $1,800 and it’s going to take six months.
“That little pulse is two wires coming out of the meter that will enable this … customer to have real-time data every 15 minutes so they can see their consumption and take advantage of all the new products. … But if you’re looking at it a day late that doesn’t help at all.
“Some utilities are adopting methods where there’s free pulses now to get customer adoption. But across the U.S. it’s all over the board for what it costs and how long it takes to get a pulse out of a utility meter,” he said.
Itemized Bills
Hay said limits on itemized bills also are hurting efforts to educate customers about the value of options available to them.
Hay
“Customers may not read direct mail pieces and they may not read their email. But they will look at their bill,” he said. “We are limited to the number of line items we have and the amount of information a supplier like us [can provide]. A more engaged customer is going to be interested in the whole product catalog. We have to find a way to give them that information.”
Because of those limitations, Hay said, his company would like to be the ones sending the bills instead of the distribution utility.
“We are pushing for supplier-consolidated billing with any utility in the U.S. market that will allow us to do so. We are pushing it as part of the [New York] REV program.
“It’s going to have costs associated with it, but we’re prepared to bear those costs. I believe that the impact to churn and the impact to customer attrition that comes from us not having that direct relationship will far exceed whatever cost structure we have to take on.”
The Delaware Public Service Commission on Tuesday unanimously approved Exelon’s $6.8 billion acquisition of Pepco Holdings Inc.
“There is a whole list of very positive things in this agreement,” Chairman Dallas Winslow toldThe News Journal.
The commission had delayed making its decision earlier this month when it learned that the Maryland Public Service Commission was going to make its decision soon (see below). Commission staff had argued that Maryland’s decision would be helpful, as their settlement with Exelon and Pepco contains a “most favored nation” clause, assuring that Delaware receives the same benefits as other states in the deal.
The commission has yet to make a formal order that reflects the balancing of benefits and did not say when it would do so. The approval leaves D.C. as the only holdout on a decision. The deal has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as regulators in New Jersey and in Virginia.
Maryland Approves with 3-2 Vote
The Maryland Public Service Commission voted 3-2 to approve the deal on May 15, saying Exelon’s reputation for service excellence was a deciding factor.
It conditioned the deal on higher reliability standards, $100 rate credits for residential customers and $43.2 million in energy efficiency programs in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.
Voting in support were Chairman Kevin Hughes and Commissioners Kelly Speakes-Backman and Lawrence Brenner, who noted that Exelon ranked in the top-quartile of reliability metrics, while PHI has lagged.
“Simply put, the evidence demonstrates that Delmarva and Pepco will be better utilities because of the merger,” they said in the order released Friday, which included 46 conditions. “Exelon has demonstrated that it knows how to run electric and gas distribution companies; indeed it is nationally recognized for its standards of excellence.”
Voting against the deal were Commissioners Harold Williams and Anne Hoskins. “The merger will impose substantial competitive harm to Maryland’s electricity market by eliminating across-the fence competition, silencing PHI’s unique non-generation voice, and chilling innovation in new energy-related technologies and products,” they said in a 51-page dissent. Exelon still needs to win the approval of Delaware and D.C. to close the deal.
The approval revises certain provisions of a settlement Exelon had reached in March with Montgomery and Prince George’s, in which the corporation agreed to pay a one-time $50 rate credit to each residential customer of Pepco’s two utilities in the state, Delmarva Power & Light and Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO). Exelon had also agreed to invest $57.6 million in energy efficiency. (See Exelon, Pepco Ink Deal with Md. Counties, but Critics Stand Firm.)
The commission also required Exelon to:
Develop 15 MW of solar generation by the end of 2018 — 5 MW in Montgomery County, 5 MW in Prince George’s County and 5 MW in the Delmarva service territory.
Establish a $14.4 million Green Sustainability Fund — $8.4 million for Montgomery and $6 million for Prince George’s — for the counties to fund solar, energy storage and other distributed generation projects.
Exceed Pepco’s level of charitable giving of $656,000 annually for at least 10 years.
Remain a part of PJM at least until the end of 2024.
Develop a pilot program for recreational and transportation use by residents of Pepco’s transmission right-of-ways.
Exelon and Pepco have until May 26 to accept the commission’s conditions. In a statement, Exelon CEO Chris Crane said the company was pleased with the decision and that the commission had recognized its reliability marks, but that the conditions in the order would be “challenging.”
“It poses some stringent conditions that will be difficult to fulfill, but all of us at Exelon accept the challenge and commit to proving ourselves in an expanded role in Maryland,” Crane said.
Critics Disappointed
Commissioners Williams and Hoskins dissented, echoing criticism that has been levied at Exelon throughout the proceeding.
“Maryland will lose its wires-only electric utilities, Pepco and Delmarva, which will be purchased by an energy conglomerate concerned with protecting its vast fleet of electric power plants, from which it derives most of its revenue,” they said. “Exelon’s economic interests to shield that fleet from emerging distributed energy technologies and other competitive threats are inherently misaligned with the interests of the customers of Pepco and Delmarva, who are predominantly concerned with efficient, cost-effective and reliable electric service.”
They also noted that the Green Sustainable Fund would not benefit Delmarva Power’s territory on the state’s Eastern Shore.
While Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett had reached the county’s settlement with Exelon, the County Council unanimously passed a resolution saying the settlement didn’t go far enough to protect ratepayers and encourage renewable energy. Councilmember Roger Berliner, an energy attorney who spearheaded the resolution, said he was “deeply disappointed with the decision.”
“Exelon has a proven track record of favoring its own nuclear generation holdings over renewable technologies like solar and wind,” Berliner said. “This merger poses an unacceptable threat to both ratepayers and our environment.”
Berliner did acknowledge the beneficial conditions of the approval. He said that he has been “knocking on Pepco’s doors” to open up their rights-of-way, but the utility “stiff-armed us for years.”
The order includes a concession Berliner had sought — a Montgomery County “green bank” through which the county will use Exelon contributions to “leverage” investment in clean energy and energy-efficiency technologies.
But Berliner lamented the fact that these breakthroughs were achieved through the acquisition process, and by the level of Exelon’s commitment to renewable energy, which he said, “just didn’t go far enough.”
Environmentalists agreed.
“We are disappointed by today’s decision, which comes as a blow to the future of clean energy in Maryland,” said David Smedick of the Sierra Club. “The meager conditions added by the commission do not come close to mitigating the harms that the merger will cause to Marylanders.”
Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh also blasted the order.
“Today is a bad day for consumers, and a great day for monopolies,” he said in a statement. “This merger — which the PSC approved by the slimmest of margins — would create a company controlling service to 80% of Maryland’s electric consumers, with the incentive and ability to stifle competition and suppress innovation. The harm to customers under this arrangement are obvious and substantial.”
PJM Independent Market Monitor Joe Bowring was disappointed by the ruling.
“They didn’t accept our conditions, so we didn’t think they did enough,” Bowring said. “What we would have liked was for Maryland to accept the conditions we proposed,” which the Monitor has proposed to all of the involved entities.
One to Go
Opposition to the Exelon-Pepco marriage continued to grow last week in D.C., where regulators may make a decision as soon as May 27, when the record closes.
Four D.C. Council members and more than half of the District’s 42 local advisory neighborhood commissioners — some of whom rallied on the steps of the Wilson Building Tuesday — are lobbying Mayor Muriel Bowser to take a stand against the transaction, though she doesn’t have an official role in the decision.
Councilman David Grosso submitted a May 12 letter to the D.C. PSC urging the board to reject the deal. The following day, People’s Counsel Sandra Mattavous-Frye filed a brief advising the PSC against the takeover.
“While this merger provides a wealth of benefits for Exelon and PHI’s shareholders, it exposes District of Columbia ratepayers to a number of unnecessary risks,” she said. “I am primarily concerned that Exelon has failed to commit to meeting established reliability standards, that any financial benefit to consumers will be erased with the first rate case and that the major decisions impacting the city’s electrical infrastructure will be made by executives in Chicago.
“As it regards the city, I am concerned that the success the District has achieved in the area of deploying renewables will be compromised by Exelon’s corporate philosophy that favors generation companies. Moreover, I have no confidence in Exelon’s ability to deliver on the promise of more jobs.”
A Year in the Making
The deal, announced last April as an all-cash transaction, has been more than a year in the making. If the deal is approved, it will create the Mid-Atlantic’s largest electric and gas utility.
Exelon is familiar with mergers. The company is the product of the 2000 pairing of Philadelphia’s PECO Energy and Chicago’s Commonwealth Edison. In 2012, it acquired Baltimore’s Constellation Energy.
It hasn’t always been successful in its deal making, however.
Exelon dropped a proposed merger with Public Service Enterprise Group in 2006, and had its overtures spurned by PPL in 1995 and NRG in 2009.
Exelon has said the deal will boost its customer count to almost 9.8 million from 7.8 million and increase its rate base to almost $26 billion from $19 billion.
Exelon hopes to close the deal by the end of the year.
WASHINGTON — Despite changing its meeting date to avoid threats of mass demonstrations next week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission couldn’t avoid another protest drama Thursday.
FERC instituted a new policy that forced all non-employees — lawyers, lobbyists, reporters and protesters — through a lengthier and more rigorous-than-normal security screening that included photographs. After receiving a paper ID badge and going through a metal detector, the known protestors were directed left, while the others went right to the escalator to the second-floor Commission Meeting Room.
When the protestors were informed they would be quarantined in a commission hearing room where they could watch video of the meeting, they began chanting “Shut FERC down!” (See video.) While organizers claimed the protesters numbered three dozen, only about 15 appeared in a video the group shot after being ejected.
Video Player
Media error: Format(s) not supported or source(s) not found
Among them was Ted Glick, national campaign coordinator at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who wore a suit rather than the red T-shirt he and other protesters had worn in previous meetings. (See Protests Continue — on Camera — at FERC.)
About 20 minutes into the meeting, as the commission was discussing a ruling on an Order 1000 compliance filing, the protesters apparently exited the hearing room. The protesters’ chants were audible — if not discernible — in the meeting room until they were escorted out of the building.
FERC Chairman Norman Bay joked, “I hope the protesters haven’t moved from pipelines to Order 1000,” prompting laughter.
But at least three protesters slipped the dragnet and were able to make brief statements before being escorted out.
PennEast Pipeline
The first two, Patty Cronheim of Hopewell Township, N.J., and Angela Switzer of Delaware Township, N.J., stood up to protest the proposed PennEast Pipeline. The 36-inch pipeline would deliver about 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day from Luzerne County, Pa., to Transco’s pipeline interconnection in Mercer County, N.J., 108 miles away.
“You’re destroying lives, you’re abusing eminent domain,” Switzer said before being led out of the meeting. “This is corporate greed over public need.”
Switzer said afterward she is concerned the pipeline, which would cross her 60-acre farm, could result in contamination of her water wells. “I live in an arsenic-rich zone and there’s a chance when they drill through the bedrock they’re going to release arsenic into my wells,” she said. “… FERC is not listening to us.”
The backers of the project — AGL Resources; NJR Pipeline Company; PSEG Power; South Jersey Industries; Spectra Energy Partners; and UGI Energy Services — are hoping for FERC approval in 2016.
A third protester, Maggie Henry, of Bessemer in Western Pennsylvania, stood up as the meeting was adjourned, shouting “In the shale plays of Pennsylvania, you are killing people!”
In a press conference afterward, Bay turned serious, reading a statement in which he criticized the repeated meeting interruptions as “disrespectful” and ineffective.
“I respect the First Amendment rights of the protesters and I want to hear their views. But there are ways to do that and there are ways not to do that,” he said. “The way not to do it is to disrupt our proceedings. In my view the disruptions are disrespectful, they violate the law [and] they can pose public security concerns. They often violate the ex parte rule. They prevent us from doing our work and it’s a turnoff. It’s ineffective and unpersuasive as a matter of advocacy.”
Bay also noted that the commission does not regulate the production of natural gas. “If someone is upset with fracking, they should probably talk to the states. If I had any advice for the protesters it would be this: tell them to reconsider what they’re doing and I would urge them to stop disrupting our meetings.”
FERC acknowledged that it had rescheduled the meeting at the recommendation of Federal Protective Services, which wanted to avoid demonstrations planned for the week of May 21-29, including the scheduled May 21 session. Beyond Extreme Energy, the organization that has been coordinating the FERC protests, had said it is hoping to attract more than 500 demonstrators to FERC during the week.
In November, about 100 climate change protesters blockaded FERC headquarters, snarling traffic on First St. N.E. About 25 were arrested.
More change is coming to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as Commissioner Philip Moeller announced last week that he won’t be returning for a third term.
Patrick McCormick sits left of Sen. Lisa Murkowski during Norman Bay and Cheryl LaFleur’s confirmation hearing last year.
News of Moeller’s departure set off one of Washington’s favorite parlor games: guessing his replacement. Sources have tabbed Patrick McCormick III, chief counsel for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), as the likely nominee.
Murkowski named McCormick as her chief counsel in 2013. He joined Murkowski’s staff as special counsel in April 2011 from Hunton & Williams, where he was a partner and led the firm’s regulated markets and energy infrastructure practice. Among McCormick’s law clients were Xcel Energy and coal giant Peabody Energy.
He was also registered as a lobbyist for FirstEnergy and the CCS Alliance, which promotes carbon capture and sequestration.
McCormick took a big pay cut to join the committee. He reported earning $567,000 in 2010 and $374,000 through April 15, 2011, at Hunton & Williams. His initial salary when he joined the Senate committee staff was about $81,000.
Before joining Hunton & Williams in 2005, McCormick was the managing partner for the Washington office of Balch & Bingham, longtime counsel for Southern Co.
McCormick also served as a deputy assistant general counsel for FERC, where he dealt with electric rates and corporate regulation, and in the law and governmental affairs departments of Potomac Electric Power Co. (PEPCO). He earned a Bachelor of Arts in history at Wheeling Jesuit University in 1977 and his law degree from Catholic University of America in 1984.
McCormick did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
If he is confirmed, and Murkowski has her way, McCormick could be implementing the first major energy legislation since the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
On May 7, Murkowski introduced 17 legislative proposals that she said would modernize the nation’s energy policies, improve infrastructure and speed review of natural gas pipelines on federal lands.
“America’s energy landscape has undergone a dramatic change since Congress last acted on comprehensive energy legislation. Our domestic energy supply has gone from scarce to abundant,” she said. “Our energy renaissance underscores the need to modernize America’s energy policies.”
Moeller to Remain Pending Replacement
Moeller, whose term expires June 30, said he will remain on the commission until a replacement is sworn in. A Republican, Moeller joined the panel in 2006.
“It’s been an honor and a privilege to serve on the commission every single day since I joined the commission in July 2006,” he said in a statement. “I send thanks to President Bush and President Obama for nominating me, as well as the members of the United States Senate who unanimously confirmed me to both terms.”
Moeller’s departure comes as the commission is adjusting to a new chairman, Norman Bay, who replaced Cheryl LaFleur in April. (See LaFleur Chairmanship Ending; Bay to Take Gavel.) The newest commissioner, Colette Honorable, joined the panel in December.
McCormick’s arrival could make for some interesting interpersonal dynamics on the commission given Murkowski’s cool reception to Bay’s nomination. (See GOP Remains Skeptical on Bay Nomination.)
Moeller’s departure means he won’t have a chance to become chairman if a Republican wins the White House in 2016.
Before joining the commission, he worked from 1997 through 2000 as an energy policy adviser to U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.). Before joining Gorton’s staff, he was the staff coordinator for the Washington State Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications. Before becoming a commissioner, he headed the D.C. office of Alliant Energy and worked in the D.C. office of Calpine.
If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission keeps its word, virtual traders in PJM should have clarity by the end of October on whether up-to-congestion transactions will be subject to additional charges.
In opening a section 206 docket on the issue last year, the commission said it would rule within five months after it receives comments following a technical conference.
The technical conference was held Jan. 7. On April 29, the commission issued the request for follow-up comments, which are due May 29 (EL14-37).
In September, FERC ordered the 206 proceeding to determine whether PJM is improperly treating UTCs differently than incremental offers (INCs) and decrement bids (DECs). While INCs and DECs are charged uplift and subject to the financial transmission rights forfeiture rule, UTCs are exempt from both.
UTC trading volumes collapsed after Sept. 8, the refund-effective date set by FERC for any uplift assessments. Some financial traders have discussed an interim fee on UTCs in an effort to encourage trading pending resolution of the case. (See Cool Response to Proposed 7-Cent Fee on Virtual Transactions.)
Among the questions on which FERC solicited comment were:
How should the injection/withdrawal points for the virtual transaction be identified?
Should the defined “worst case” node be limited to the market participant’s own transactions?
Should the FTR forfeiture rule collectively assess the net impact of a market participant’s entire portfolio of INCs, DECs and UTCs instead of the current rule, which assesses virtual transactions one at a time?
Should counter-flow FTRs and bids that relieve congestion remain exempt from FTR forfeiture rule calculations? Should financial transactions that improve day-ahead and real-time market price convergence be exempt from the forfeiture rule?
Should UTCs be assessed uplift?
Do UTCs impact unit commitment decisions?
Should market participants be allowed to net INC and DEC transactions for the purpose of uplift allocations?
Extreme winter temperatures, while not as severe as last year, continue to play a major role in companies’ earnings results and business strategies.
PSEG
Public Service Enterprise Group reported 2015 first-quarter net income of $586 million ($1.15/share) compared to $386 million ($0.76/share) for the same period last year, a 52% increase.
While the company cited the strong performances of Public Service Electric & Gas and its generation business PSEG Power, operating earnings only increased slightly from the previous year and revenue dipped slightly. The biggest boon for the company was a $264 million settlement it reached with its insurers to recover losses due to Superstorm Sandy, $159 million of which is reflected in the first-quarter report.
PSEG had filed a lawsuit against the insurance companies in the summer of 2013, claiming they had denied it full coverage for its losses. A New Jersey Superior Court judge sided with the company in March. “The claims related to Superstorm Sandy insurance coverage are now fully resolved,” PSE&G spokeswoman Karen Johnson said.
Operating earnings for PSEG Power fell slightly by 5%, but due in part to the settlement, the business’s net income rose from $164 million to $335 million, a 105% increase. Most of the settlement money was for damages to the subsidiary’s plants.
“PSE&G is delivering on the promise of its expanded distribution and transmission investment program, while the reliable performance of PSEG Power’s generating assets and its gas market expertise during one of the coldest winters on record helped us deliver value for our customers,” CEO Ralph Izzo said.
Duke
Duke Energy reported 2015 first-quarter net income of $864 million ($1.22/share) on $6 billion in revenue.
While revenue fell from the nearly $6.3 billion it brought in a year ago, Duke’s earnings per share were well above analysts’ expectations of $1.14/share. A year ago, the company posted a first-quarter loss of $97 million after a $1.4 billion write-down of its Midwest Generation business. In March, Duke completed a $2.8 billion sale of the business to Dynegy.
Duke’s domestic utility businesses performed well despite the challenges of multiple winter storms, including Duke Energy Carolinas customers setting a record on Feb. 20 for peak use, CEO Lynn Good said. This offset weak international results, due in large part to an ongoing drought in Brazil that drove up the cost of purchased hydropower.
FirstEnergy
FirstEnergy’s first-quarter net income rose almost 7% to $222 million ($0.53/share) despite a 7% drop in revenue to $3.9 billion, the company said. Last year it reported earnings of $208 million ($0.49/share) on first-quarter revenue of $4.2 billion.
In an earnings call with analysts, CEO Charles Jones cited a revised strategy in the company’s competitive sales business as the primary driver of both the increased earnings and decreased revenue. FirstEnergy reduced its predicted annual load obligation to 68 million MWh, compared to 99 million last year, Jones said. The company also reduced the number of residential and small business customers it serves in weather-sensitive areas.
“This strategy, together with improved plant operations, helped to mitigate the potential downside from this year’s severe first-quarter weather and demand conditions, even though our region experienced four more below-zero days this February than last January,” Jones said. He also noted that PJM set a new winter demand peak in February. (See Cold Sends PJM to New Winter Record.)
The company also cited an increase in earnings from its regulated transmission segment, a result of prior investments, it said.
Dominion
Dominion Resources reported a 41% increase in net income for the first quarter, from $379 million ($0.65/share) last year to $536 million ($0.91/share) this year.
Operating earnings for the quarter, however, fell nearly 4%, and revenue fell 6%, from $3.63 billion last year to $3.41 billion this year. While earnings were largely the same from last year across most segments, Dominion noted a drop in its merchant generation business — earnings fell by nearly 9% — as one of the primary factors in the decrease in operating earnings.
CFO Mark McGettrick told investors that the drop was primarily due to poor power prices for its merchant generation in New England. Otherwise, weather conditions in the company’s service areas were “favorable,” which added 5 cents more per share in operating earnings than normal, he said.
PPL
PPL more than doubled its first-quarter profits, reporting earnings of $647 million ($0.96/share) versus $316 million ($0.49/share) in 2014.
Revenues were $3.17 billion, up from $1.19 billion in the first quarter of 2014, when it recorded $1.46 billion in losses on physical and financial commodity sales.
The company cited strong results from its regulated operations in the United Kingdom, Pennsylvania and Kentucky and earnings from infrastructure investments.
PPL expects to close the spinoff of its competitive generation business into Talen Energy on June 1.
“Moving forward as a purely regulated utility company, we remain confident in our ability to achieve annual earnings growth of 4 to 6% through at least 2017, based on the continued strong performance of our regulated businesses, the rate base growth expected from significant projected infrastructure investment and $75 million in targeted, corporate support cost savings that have been identified as part of our corporate restructuring,” CEO William Spence said.
Con Ed
Consolidated Edison reported first-quarter net income of $370 million ($1.26/share) compared with $361 million ($1.23/share) in 2014.
Revenue for the company’s regulated utilities fell by 4.4%, from $2.22 billion to $2.12 billion.
“The company experienced strong financial performance in the first quarter, and our workforce performed admirably during the challenges of a persistent, lingering winter,” said John McAvoy, chairman and CEO of Con Ed. “We are also very pleased with a proposed settlement with the New York State Public Service Commission that will keep electric delivery rates flat for our customers through 2016.”
MISO and SPP are considering $276 million in potential transmission upgrades under a joint model for identifying congested flowgates that could be relieved by economic projects.
Emerging from that joint process so far are four potential projects that could generate $438 million in benefits to the RTOs over 20 years, RTO officials said last week at a meeting of the SPP-MISO Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
Four projects may not sound like much. But it’s progress considering the RTOs’ contentious relationship since December 2013 when New Orleans-based Entergy joined MISO rather than SPP, which had served as the Independent Coordinator of Transmission for Entergy’s system since 2006.
Most visible is a dispute over flows between MISO’s northern region and its new, southern region. MISO began limiting flows between the regions last spring after SPP complained that MISO had breached their joint operating agreement by moving power over its transmission footprint in excess of a 1,000-MW physical contract path.
But that dispute seemed distant as staff from both RTOs convened last week in Little Rock, Ark. Some even joked that they’ve been talking so much with those at the other RTO that they’ve memorized their phone numbers.
“We’ve learned a great deal about each other’s processes,” said Clayton Mayfield, an economic planner at SPP.
Collaboration has also improved modeling practices and provided a better understanding of neighboring stakeholder groups, said Jenell McKay, a senior analyst at MISO.
Stakeholders and staff at SPP and MISO came up with 67 potential economic projects using a joint model based on each RTO’s regional model. It projected transmission needs for 2019 and 2024.
That was whittled down to seven projects with potential, but three of those didn’t provide a minimum 5% benefit set as a threshold under the joint model.
The four projects seen to have the most potential totaled $276 million. They include new and upgraded transmission lines and transformers in Louisiana, Kansas and Nebraska. Benefits range from a 21% congestion reduction to a complete reduction in congestion.
Still Fine-Tuning List
Mayfield cautioned that the project list is preliminary and that more projects will likely emerge from the ongoing collaborative effort.
He noted that some projects initially identified were dismissed, and others added, after assumptions changed about the future of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Shawnee units. MISO’s 2014 Transmission Expansion Plan originally contemplated that Shawnee Units 1-10, totaling 1,369 MW, would be retired, but TVA has since decided to keep nine of the Shawnee units in service.
The IPSAC joint analysis is expected to result in final project recommendations by June 30. The committee also is looking at a handful of reliability projects to reduce overloads.
More Potential
Other joint studies may be underway. McKay said the RTOs have had discussions regarding a study involving the effects of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan.
Pat Hayes, senior transmission policy specialist at Ameren, told the committee it could be helpful if staff conducts a “post mortem” regarding what differences the RTOs ran into and how they could have impeded a project from going through.
Kip Fox, director of transmission strategy and grid development at American Electric Power, said his “personal observation” is that the RTOs are working better together. He noted, however, that MISO and PJM have not been able to get moving on a seams project after four years. “I don’t want the same thing to happen here,” he told the committee.
Warren Buffett’s energy businesses have been buying and building wind generation facilities in the Midwest and Great Plains for years.
But the Oracle of Omaha now has his eyes on bringing solar power to the central U.S., according to a recent filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Energy disclosed that it recently acquired a site for solar generation development in MISO’s central region. The “site” consists of 74 individual “locations” not to exceed 1 MW each, according to the company’s quarterly property acquisition report. (MidAmerican Energy Holdings changed its name to Berkshire Hathaway Energy in April 2014.)
The company did not disclose exactly where the site is located. The company is not ready to make an announcement on the project, spokesman David Caris said.
MISO is a new locale for the company’s solar portfolio.
Subsidiary BHE Renewables has more than 1,200 MW in existing solar generation, primarily in California and Arizona, including its 550-MW Topaz Solar Farms in San Luis Obispo County, Calif., which became fully operational in March. Berkshire Hathaway companies also operate 579 MW of solar generation in Los Angeles and Kern Counties and own 49% of a 290-MW solar generating site in Yuma County, Ariz.
Environmental Regulations Bring Opportunities
Berkshire Hathaway’s planned solar expansion in MISO’s coal-dependent central region — which includes Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and parts of Illinois — appears designed to take advantage of increased demand for renewables as a result of federal environmental regulations.
The company has also continued its investments in wind. In October, BHE announced its plans for a 160-MW wind farm in Adams County, Iowa, that could cost up to $280 million.
Late last month, the company filed plans with the Iowa Utilities Board to construct up to 552 MW of additional wind generation in the state at a cost of $900 million. The company said it would announce the location and other details later.
On April 30, BHE announced plans to build a 400-MW wind farm in Holt County, Neb., that would be the largest wind project in the state. The recent FERC filing said that Berkshire Hathaway acquired a site in SPP territory for up to 400 MW of wind-powered generation development. It wasn’t immediately clear whether it’s the same site.
BHE owns and operates more than 3,400 MW of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro generation.
At the Edison Electric Institute’s annual convention last June, Buffett said the company, which has already spent $15 billion on renewables, was prepared to double that investment.
ALBANY, N.Y. — Four former energy regulators who were in the middle of many of the electric industry’s watershed events of the past two decades reminisced — and expressed regrets for paths not chosen — at the Independent Power Producers of New York spring conference Wednesday.
From left to right: Massey, Wood, moderator and former NYPSC chair William Flynn, Brownell and Kelly.
Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioners William Massey (1993–2003), Nora Mead Brownell (2001–2006), Suedeen Kelly (2003–2009) and former chairman Pat Wood (2001-2005) expressed pride in the growth of wholesale competition and wistfulness over political compromises that prevented development of larger, more uniform markets.
In a later session, NYISO CEO Stephen Whitley (2008–present) and predecessors William Museler (1999–2005) and Mark Lynch (2005–2008) also shared war stories from the first 15 years of the ISO’s markets.
Open Access
Massey
Massey voted in 1996 for the landmark Order 888, which ordered transmission operators to open their lines to competition.
“We knew we would get pushback with everything we did, but if you’re going to be a regulator or run an RTO, you’ve got to have political courage,” said Massey, counsel to the COMPETE coalition, which represents more than 700 stakeholders in support of electricity competition.
And political courage failed him at the most crucial time, Massey admitted, recalling the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, which occurred after FERC’s misgivings about the poorly designed California market were cast aside.
Massey related how the 1996 utility restructuring law passed the California legislature unanimously. The entire California congressional delegation then wrote to FERC, saying that any tinkering by the agency would likely cause the plan to collapse “like a house of cards.”
FERC meekly went along. “We had the opportunity to vote yes or no,” Massey said. “That is the vote I’m most sorry about.”
California’s wholesale power market and customer-choice program began in 1998 and seemed to be working well until the summer of 2000, when electricity prices in southern California hit all-time highs, and generation shortages caused rolling blackouts in northern California. Escalating wholesale prices, combined with retail price caps, put the state’s three major investor-owned utilities in a vise, with Pacific Gas & Electric forced to declare bankruptcy.
In December 2000, FERC eliminated the requirement that the three IOUs purchase their power through the California Power Exchange. In June 2001, shortly after Wood and Brownell joined the commission, FERC expanded a price mitigation and market monitoring plan it had issued in April 2001.
The California price spikes and Enron’s implosion stopped restructuring dead in its tracks as a national policy, Wood recalled. “Years later we were still putting the pieces back together,” he said.
Wood
Wood, now chairman of the Dynegy Board of Directors, said the industry is still coping with the lessons from the California crisis, including the balancing of consumer interests and industry needs. “If you want to be an economic regulator, you’ve got to understand the economics [and] what it takes to incent investment,” he said.
What he most seemed to regret was how proposals to divide the country into four RTOs — the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and West — were stymied. The country is still paying for the “balkanization” of the markets caused by the “hue and cry and pushback,” he said.
“I still think there’s a lot of enterprise that could occur between New York and New England. And the seams issues between PJM and MISO are just awful,” he said.
Present & former NYISO CEO’s: William Museler (1999-2005) (L), Mark Lynch (2005-2008) (M), and Stephen Whitley (2008-present) (R)
Former NYISO CEO Lynch said the vision of a larger, seamless market in the Eastern Interconnection is unlikely to be realized. “We may have missed our opportunity to get there,” he said.
Kelly, who worked on legislation to make restructured markets national policy as a Senate staffer before her FERC tenure, said its failure informed her tenure as a regulator. “Political courage is important, but even more important is political support,” she said. Kelly added that energy policy is one place where partisanship can melt away and consensus built.
Brownell
But Brownell and NYISO CEO Whitley said that consensus-building can be unwieldy — “herding cats,” Whitley called it.
“I think the stakeholder process has grown into a cottage industry,” Brownell said. “I have great respect for the work they do, but I can’t imagine the New York Stock Exchange being developed by 400 people over a three-year period. We need to focus on the larger picture,” she said.
The larger picture, Brownell said, is electric markets’ role in developing the economy. “Where we begin to redefine this industry as economic development, we’ll move away from state versus federal [jurisdiction]. This is really about our competitive position in the world and social well-being.”
A New York clean energy developer has challenged a three-state effort to bring more renewable energy to New England.
Allco Renewable Energy Group filed suit against Connecticut in U.S. District Court in New Haven, claiming the joint effort and Connecticut’s renewable energy subsidies violate the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause (3:15-cv-00608-CSH). Allco is also asking for an injunction to stop the joint procurement plan by Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Allco CEO Thomas Melone unsuccessfully sued over Connecticut’s previous clean power plan, claiming the state illegally excluded renewable energy credits (RECs) generated by his facilities in other states from participating in Connecticut’s programs. RECs represent the environmental attributes of a clean energy project and are sold and traded separately from the energy produced. That case is under appeal. The claims made in that suit under the dormant Commerce Clause and the Federal Power Act are repeated in the new lawsuit.
Connecticut counts RECs from other New England states, and from New York and Canada, under certain circumstances. Melone is seeking to have his solar facilities in Georgia and New York qualified. The determination should be made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and not the states, the suit says.
“The dormant Commerce Clause prohibits a state from using its regulatory power to discriminate against out-of-state businesses,” according to the suit, filed on April 26.
Allco sued the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the state’s Public Utility Regulatory Authority.
“The three-state procurement is an innovative approach to meeting our renewable energy goals and securing clean power at the lowest possible price for our families and businesses,” Dennis Schain, a spokesman for DEEP said in a written statement to the Hartford Courant. “We believe the procurement is legally sound and will meet court challenges.”