Search
`
November 5, 2024

NERC Board Approves Cold Weather Standards

In a special meeting Monday morning, NERC’s Board of Trustees agreed to adopt two new reliability standards for extreme cold weather, leaving approval by FERC as the last step before they become enforceable.

Trustees accepted EOP-011-4 (Emergency operations) and TOP-002-5 (Operations planning), both of which were produced by Project 2021-07 (Extreme cold weather grid operations, preparedness and coordination). NERC began the project in November 2021 to address the recommendations of the FERC-NERC joint report into the winter storms that struck Texas and the South Central U.S. that year. (See FERC, NERC Release Final Texas Storm Report.)

The new standards are part of the second phase of the project; FERC already approved two standards produced in phase 1 — EOP-012-1 (Extreme cold weather preparedness and operations) and EOP-011-3 (Emergency operations) — in February. (See FERC Orders New Reliability Standards in Response to Uri.) With the conclusion of phase 2, the team for Project 2021-07 will move into the third and final phase to address further changes to EOP-012-1 that FERC directed this year.

EOP-011-4 updates its predecessor with requirements for transmission operators (TOPs) and balancing authorities (BAs) to update their operating plans to address emergencies arising from “the critical natural gas infrastructure loads that fuel a significant portion of … generation.”

Under the new standard, TOPs would have to prioritize critical natural gas loads in manual and automatic load shedding; they also would have to identify entities that are required to assist with load shedding, and those entities would be required to develop a load-shedding plan that prioritizes critical natural gas infrastructure loads. BAs also would be required to exclude critical natural gas infrastructure loads from their demand response programs during periods of extreme cold weather.

TOP-002-5 would require each BA to develop an operating process for its area that addresses preparations for and operations during extreme cold weather periods. The process must contain methodologies for identifying the periods in which it applies, for determining adequate reserve margins during these periods, and for developing a five-day hourly forecast that considers weather, demand, resource commitment, and capacity and energy reserve requirements.

During Monday’s meeting, Trustee Jim Piro asked Soo Jin Kim, NERC’s vice president of engineering and standards, how the team decided on the threshold for determining “what is an acceptable reserve margin calculation.” Kim replied that the team felt it was important to encourage entities to get plenty of lead time ahead of any possible events.

“I know some of the entities did push for a three-day look-ahead with regards to adequate reserve margins, [but] at the end of the day, we asked that the entities [try to] coordinate as [far] ahead as possible. It does allow for future coordination,” Kim said.

Board Chair Ken DeFontes added that he felt it “particularly important” that utilities were required to think about how their load-shedding programs might impact the natural gas system and adjust their plans to ensure those impacts are as small as possible.

Following the unanimous vote for approval, DeFontes confirmed with Kim that the third phase should be complete in the beginning of 2024.

FERC Approves ERO 2024 Budgets

FERC last week unanimously approved the 2024 business plans and budgets for NERC, the regional entities and the Western Interconnection Regional Advisory Body (WIRAB), though Commissioner James Danly said in a concurrence that he would like to see “a significant improvement in the speed and agility” of the ERO’s response to energy reliability risks (RR23-3).

NERC’s final budget, approved by the organization’s Board of Trustees in August, stands at $113.6 million, an increase of $12.6 million (12.5%) over its 2023 budget. (See “2024 Budget Approved,” NERC Board of Trustees/MRC Meeting Briefs: Aug. 16-17, 2023.) The RE budgets are also set to grow:

    • Midwest Reliability Organization — $24.9 million (up from $23.1 million);
    • Northeast Power Coordinating Council — $22.1 million (from $19.4 million);
    • ReliabilityFirst — $31.3 million (from $28 million);
    • SERC Reliability — $32 million (from $28.2 million);
    • Texas Reliability Entity — $19.2 million (from $17.7 million); and
    • WECC — $35.4 million (from $31.8 million).

In contrast, WIRAB’s budget for next year is set to shrink from $883,520 to $831,492.

The total assessment for the ERO is set at $216 million, comprising $97 million for NERC ($87.1 million from U.S. entities, $9.5 million from Canadian entities and $346,814 from Mexican entities), $128.3 million for the REs and $580,417 for WIRAB.

In its filing, NERC also outlined anticipated funding sources outside of the assessment, such as $10.1 million of third-party funding for the Electricity Information Sharing Analysis Center’s (E-ISAC) Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program; $1.8 million in fees for users of the System Operator Certification Program; and $1.1 million in interest and investment income.

NERC’s biggest spending increases next year are expected to be in personnel (+13.4%), meeting and travel (11.5%) and operating (15.7%). The organization plans to hire an additional 14.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions next year, bringing its total staffing level to 251.1 FTEs.

The increased meeting and travel costs reflect “a return to pre-pandemic levels of in-person meetings and travel … while continuing to utilize the efficiencies of virtual meetings where appropriate,” NERC said. The organization attributed its raise in operating expenses to increases in spending on contractors and consultants, along with increased software license and support costs.

A significant number of the added FTEs, 4.7, are to handle the Interregional Transfer Capability Study (ITCS), which Congress ordered NERC and the regional entities to perform in this year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act. (See Lawmakers, White House Promise More Work on Permitting After Debt Deal.) The ERO is required to submit the report to FERC by Dec. 2, 2024, imposing costs on NERC and the REs that were not envisioned in their initial budget drafts.

In order to avoid raising the assessment proposed in its draft budget, NERC proposed to fund the $2.6 million required for the ITCS costs by drawing $1.3 million from the Assessment Stabilization Reserve, for non-personnel costs, and the remainder from the Operating Contingency Reserve. Drawing on the ASR in this way requires an exception under section 1107 of NERC’s Rules of Procedure; FERC granted the request.

The commission also agreed to permit an exception under section 1107 to allow NPCC and SERC to deposit penalty funds received between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, amounting to $535,018 and $6.6 million, respectively, into their ASRs; and to allow MRO to use $1.2 million from its ASR and $119,026 of penalties collected before June 30, 2022, to reduce its 2024 assessments.

Finally, FERC approved WECC’s request to use up to $250,000 from the funds donated by Peak Reliability upon its dissolution in 2019 to support an expanded trial of an energy market simulation platform and the acquisition of electromagnetic transient simulation software.

In his concurrence, Danly said he is “not convinced” that the commission is “really getting value for the money [NERC is] spending to address known or emerging reliability risks.” He noted the commission’s separate order on developing standards for inverter-based resources, a reliability risk that he said “we have known about, and been actively discussing, since at least 2016.” (See FERC Orders Reliability Rules for Inverter-Based Resources.)

Despite this long debate, he said, the proposed standards would not be required to take effect until 2030. “Up to nearly 14 years is a very long time, and the reliable operation of the [power grid] remains imperiled until these risks are adequately addressed. We are as responsible for this situation as NERC,” Danly wrote, noting that the proposed 2024 budget is 12.5% higher than that for 2023, which was 13.7% higher than 2022.

“Will this increased funding actually help expedite the development and implementation of needed NERC reliability standards? Based on NERC’s recent track record, I have my doubts,” he concluded.

NY Drills Down on Statutory Meaning of ‘Zero Emissions’

The New York Department of Public Service is once again seeking input on what exactly “zero emissions” means.

More precisely, it is trying to find an acceptable, expanded definition as the state’s statutory goals for emissions reductions appear increasingly hard to reach. And it is asking for legal interpretations as it goes through the process.

The Public Service Commission opened the contentious conversation in May when it acknowledged that favored technologies such as wind and solar might not be enough to achieve 70% renewable energy by 2030 and 100% emissions-free energy by 2040 (Case 15-E-0302).

This suggested a possible fallback on technologies opposed by many clean energy advocates, such as hydrogen, bioenergy and carbon capture.

The number and range of comments filed by the late August deadline was not surprising, given the potential impacts on the business plans of energy developers and on the health and wallets of state residents.

The Department of Public Service on Oct. 20 issued a series of follow-up questions to clarify the points made in the first round of questions.

The issue is even more salient now than when the PSC started the ball rolling in May: Developers of much of the state’s clean energy pipeline — 90 projects totaling more than 12 GW — said in June they might not be able to begin construction without more money. And the PSC voted unanimously Oct. 12 to reject their request for an inflation adjustment.

Renewable energy had been coming online slowly in New York even before this turn of events, and NYISO has been warning with growing urgency about a potential generation shortfall as fossil fuel plants are retired.

The DPS on Oct. 20 issued six new questions and asked for legal interpretations rather than policy considerations:

    • State Public Service Law and the landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 do not define “emissions” when they call for zero emissions. Should that be read as all air pollutants, just greenhouse gas emissions or something else?
    • Should the PSC read “zero emissions” and “net-zero emissions” as distinct terms, and if so, how should it characterize and apply the distinction?
    • The state Department of Conservation has counted biomass combustion emissions for electrical generation on a gross rather than net basis; should that inform the PSC as it defines zero emissions for the statewide electrical demand system?
    • What discretion does the CLCPA offer DPS staff as it specifies parameters such as which elements of the lifecycle of a given emissions source should be counted toward an emissions limit, and the threshold level at which emissions from that source are disqualifying?
    • Public Service Law designates fuel cells as a renewable energy system if they do not use a fossil fuel resource while generating electricity. What significance does this have for characterizing fuel cells that consume hydrogen, biogas, renewable natural gas or other non-fossil fuels as “zero emissions?”
    • “Statewide electrical demand system” is not defined in the CLCPA or elsewhere. What definitions does the law support, and how do they relate to electricity generated outside of the state or behind the meter?

Comments are due by Jan. 19.

A two-day technical conference on the matter is scheduled in-person and virtually Dec. 11-12.

Overheard at Connecticut Power and Energy Society’s ‘Future of Energy’ Conference

HARTFORD, Conn. — Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin opened Connecticut Power and Energy Society’s “Future of Energy” conference with a call to speed up the pace of the energy transition, while also praising the state’s accomplishments.

“We’ve got to go so much faster if we’re going to get where we need to go,” Bronin said. “We know how much is at stake.”

Commissioner Katie Dykes of the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection said climate change is stressing the state’s infrastructure, which has endured the effects of flooding from heavy and persistent rains that have bombarded the northeast this year.

Dykes said economywide decarbonization relies on decarbonizing the electric sector — which will in turn relies on the successful deployment of offshore wind — while also keeping electric rates as affordable as possible.

“There is a ceiling on what ratepayers can afford when it comes to offshore wind at this moment,” Dykes said.

For developers preparing bids for the state’s upcoming offshore wind procurement, “it’s important to keep price in mind,” Dykes said, expressing her hope some developers may be willing to take a lower profit margin to help the industry off the ground.

She expressed her hope that coordinated procurements between Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, along with indexing provisions in the contracts to account for inflation, will help overcome the industry’s recent struggles. (See Mass., RI, Conn. Sign Coordination Agreement for OSW Procurement.) In early October, Avangrid reached an agreement to back out of its contract with two Connecticut utilities for the 804-MW Park City Wind project, calling it “unfinanceable.” (See Park City Wind to Cancel PPAs, Exit OSW Pipeline.)

Dykes added that the state will continue to think creatively about improving the procurement process, and is considering holding regular, annual solicitations and dividing wind and related transmission procurements into “separate but synchronized” processes.

Paul Lavoie, Connecticut’s chief manufacturing officer, said offshore wind presents “a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us to stand up a new industry,” and that the state needs to increase its workforce development to prepare for the opportunity.

“The number one problem in Connecticut is the lack of a skilled and available workforce,” Lavoie said, adding this likely will remain the top issue for industry and manufacturing for the next 20 years.

He added that collaborating with neighboring states will allow each state to play to its strengths and minimize workforce shortages in any given state, citing coordinated procurements as an example.

“When it comes to the offshore wind industry, we can no longer be competitive — we have to be collaborative,” Lavoie said. “If Massachusetts has a strength, let Massachusetts have that work. If Connecticut has a strength, let Connecticut have that work.”

Lavoie also connected workforce shortages with the shortage of affordable housing in the state. “We don’t have enough places for people to live,” he said.

A local supply chain also could help insulate against future inflation increases, said Per Onnerud of Cadenza Innovation, a company that develops lithium-ion battery storage.

“Unfortunately, our supply chain right now is in China, for the lithium industry,” Onnerud said. “We need to lessen our relationship with China. We need to decouple, but we also cannot completely go cold turkey … It’s about striking a balance.”

Deputy Commissioner Robert Hotaling of the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development added that the state must focus on bringing education and employment opportunities to diverse and underserved communities.

“Diverse workforces drive innovation,” Hotaling said. “People from different backgrounds have different ideas, which lead to diverse solutions.”

Phillips Addresses ‘Acting’ Status as FERC Awaits Nominees

What’s in a name?

That was the question FERC Chair — or “acting” Chair — Willie Phillips was asked at his press conference after the commission’s open meeting Oct. 19.

The FERC press release announcing Phillips’ elevation in January called him “acting chair,” but that has no legal definition under the commission’s governing statute. And the “acting” caveat was missing from the order President Joe Biden signed appointing Phillips. Phillips was confirmed by the Senate in 2021 to a term that ends June 30, 2026.

“Let me be clear: I work at the pleasure, and I serve at the pleasure, of the president,” Phillips said in response to a question about the discrepancy. “And I’m honored to serve. On January 3, 2023, I was named the chairman and the leader of this agency. Nothing has changed.”

This month, the conservative Institute for Energy Research released Biden’s order, which it obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

IER said FERC took nearly eight months to respond to its FOIA request and that it did so under a court-ordered deadline.

“It is now clear … FERC had the document all along, but for some reason did not want it to see the light of day,” IER President Thomas Pyle said in a statement. “It is also clear from the order that Commissioner Phillips is not the ‘acting’ chairman, as stated in the original FERC press release, but rather the full-fledged chairman.”

Initially, Biden had tapped former Chairman Richard Glick for another term running FERC, but that was scuttled by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). (See FERC’s Work in 2022 Left in Doubt by Manchin.)

Manchin and committee Republicans had criticized some of Glick’s proposals on how FERC reviews applications to build natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Phillips got a much warmer reception from that committee in a hearing in May. (See Senators Praise Phillips, FERC’s Output at Oversight Hearing.)

The White House told E&E News in January that Phillips would be acting chair until Biden appointed a “permanent” chair, and reiterated the “acting” designation this month.

The commission has added to the confusion: While press releases refer to Phillips only as “chairman,” his biography page lists him as “acting.”

Although appointment to FERC requires Senate confirmation, the appointment of the chair is the president’s authority alone.

At the hearing in May, Manchin told Phillips “there is no such thing as an ‘acting’ chair,” adding, “I’m glad you’ve been able to hit the ground running.”

“Once the president says you’re chairman, you’re chairman,” former FERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff said in an interview. “This ‘acting’ thing is all, you know, a big tempest in a tea pot, as they say.”

The president can rescind the chair appointment at his discretion, which happened to former Chair Neil Chatterjee late in the Trump administration.

Chatterjee said in an interview that Phillips is going to be running FERC through the end of 2024 at least, after which the commission’s leadership depends on the outcome of the next presidential election. The issue around the “acting” language had nothing to do with Phillips personally, but rather the White House seeking assurances from Manchin that he would not hold up Glick’s ultimate replacement, Chatterjee said.

Open Seats

FERC has gone more than 10 months without a replacement for Glick, and since then, Commissioner James Danly’s term expired at the end of June, though he can stay on at least until the end of the year, when Congress adjourns. While the Senate schedule has only seven weeks left and some are thinking about a three-member regulator next year, Chatterjee, who was a longtime Senate staffer, said sometimes nominations can move fast.

“Things can be very, very slow,” Chatterjee said. “But then there are times when lightning strikes, and they happen very quickly. So, I wouldn’t rule it out. If there’s momentum to do it, if it were clean, if there’s a pairing that both sides were fine with, it could go very quickly.”

In response to IER’s claims, FERC spokeswoman Mary O’Driscoll said the president’s order accurately reflects that Biden designated Phillips to lead FERC at the start of this year.

“Since he was named chairman, FERC has taken significant, bipartisan steps to enhance grid reliability, address the needs of environmental justice communities, certificate needed energy infrastructure and approve historic transmission reform,” she added. “FERC is working — as it should — to secure a more reliable and sustainable energy future for all Americans.”

After the open meeting, Phillips expressed pride in running an agency that regulates key sectors of the national economy.

“I’m proud of the fact that since I became chairman, we have done significant work to make reliability job number one,” Phillips said. “We have elevated the issue of environmental justice to be something that’s not just whispered about, but actually talked about and confronted by this agency and throughout our industry.”

Phillips also said his background growing up in rural Alabama and being the first Black man to run FERC influenced his job satisfaction. “I was just at Morehouse College … two weeks ago,” Phillips said. “And I know that this is important because people tell me it’s important to them. They see me and they know that they can do anything.”

Settlement over PJM Elliott Penalties Receives Broad Support

A proposed settlement to reduce generators’ nonperformance penalties for the December 2022 winter storm received support Thursday from stakeholders, who urged FERC to approve it to reduce legal uncertainty (EL23-53, et al.).

A pair of Pennsylvania coal generators filed what is so far the lone protest against the settlement, which would reduce the penalties for nonperformance by nearly 32%. (See PJM OKs 32% Cut in Elliott Penalties in Proposed Settlement.)

In their objection, Chief Keystone Power and Chief Conemaugh Power argued that reducing the total penalties assessed against generators that did not meet their capacity obligations during the Winter Storm Elliott performance assessment intervals (PAIs) would deprive generators that invested in maintenance and on-site fuel of the Capacity Performance bonus payments they expected to receive under the tariff.

Under the CP construct, the $1.8 billion in penalties would be distributed to generators that exceeded their expected performance during the emergency conditions. The settlement would reduce the penalties to $1.23 billion by requiring bonus payment recipients, including the Chief companies, to return a portion of their share and resolve the 15 complaints generators filed against PJM related to the charges.

The Chief companies countered the argument made in several complaints that PJM had not followed the required steps before initiating a PAI by stating that market participants are able to access equal or superior weather and load forecasts than those that RTO dispatchers rely on and therefore should have been prepared for a potential emergency.

“Here is a settlement negotiated by PJM and a group of generating companies that failed to meet their obligations during a severe weather emergency because, among other things, they decided not to conduct necessary maintenance or procure firm gas deliveries in advance of the emergency and so were unable to generate when non-firm fuel was unavailable,” the companies argued. “The fact that many of the nonperforming companies obtained fuel but failed to operate due to mechanical failures raises questions about maintenance and diligence in winterizing programs.”

They also argue that by resolving the complaints against PJM without a full investigation, the commission might foreclose on an opportunity to learn of any faults in the RTO’s markets or generation fleet that could be improved on before they can disrupt system operations again.

If the commission were to approve the settlement, the Chief companies called for it to make the settlement binding only for those companies that were parties to the agreement.

“PJM proposes that approval of the settlement will relieve it from ‘all claims’ for its actions or inactions before, during and after the Winter Storm Elliott. That ‘release’ in conjunction with other settlement provisions is intended to preclude PJM from having to pay to performing companies the payments that are due under the tariff. While that may be appropriate for those who sign the settlement agreement, it must not apply to those that prefer to exercise their legal rights.”

Support

In its comments supporting the settlement, the Coalition of PJM Capacity Resources — a group of generators that is party to the agreement — argued that it would avoid disrupting the RTO’s markets with “unprecedented” penalties and protracted litigation that was likely to result from the complaints while still providing bonus payments to resources that had earned them.

The group said that many of the complainants sought a larger reduction, or complete rejection, of their CP penalties but agreed that avoiding years of uncertainty around the allocation of penalties and bonuses was preferable.

“If approved, this settlement will allow the parties to the Winter Storm Elliott complaints — PJM, the complainants and intervenors — to avoid the risks and burdens of time-consuming litigation so that PJM and market participants can focus their attention on capacity market reforms, maintaining reliability and encouraging investments in the PJM region,” the coalition said.

It noted that 81 parties had signed on to the agreement with their support, with “many more” indicating that they don’t oppose it, showing a belief among market participants that it is just and reasonable.

“Although the settlement was not agreed upon by all participants to the settlement negotiations, the settling parties include a broad array of market participants, including net nonperformance charge payors, net performance payment recipients, renewable resources, thermal generators, and small and large PJM market participants. This broad support across market participants is indicative that the settlement as a whole is just and reasonable,” the coalition wrote.

Several companies submitted comments stating that they do not contest the settlement in the hope that it can provide market participants with more certainty about their bonus and penalty standings.

In its comments, Avangrid said its preferred outcome would be the implementation of the full penalties and bonus payments outlined in PJM’s tariff, but it sees benefits in market certainty provided by the settlement.

“The primary driver for Avangrid choosing to be a non-contesting party is its recognition that there is value in settling disputes in a streamlined and timely manner,” the company wrote. “Additionally, Avangrid hopes in earnest that this potential value of settling these issues — such that members may focus on forward-looking, and not retroactive, initiatives — comes to fruition.”

Overheard at the OPSI Annual Meeting

COVINGTON, Ky. — Participants at the Organization of PJM States Inc. (OPSI) annual meeting debated PJM’s recent capacity market filing and whether the RTO next needs to consider changes to its energy and reserve markets to ease the transition to increasing volumes of intermittent resources.

Transparency Faulted on CIFP Filing

During a session discussing PJM’s proposed capacity market changes, James Wilson, a consultant to state consumer advocates, said the critical issue fast path (CIFP) process that resulted in PJM’s filing lacked the information sharing needed to adequately evaluate how specific provisions could impact rates or reliability. In particular, he said changes to the variable resource requirement curve would reduce the amount of unforced capacity (UCAP) available on the capacity market by around 25,000 MW. (See PJM Files Capacity Market Revamp with FERC.)

PJM Vice President of Market Design and Economics Adam Keech said the proposal would balance the reduced UCAP by reducing the amount of capacity that load will have to procure. Correlated outage risk, for instance, will be shifted from being on the demand side of the auction to supply.

“While, yes, the supply side is going down, I want to be clear that the demand side is going down,” Keech said.

Paul Sotkiewicz, president of E-Cubed Policy Associates, said he believes the CIFP process tried to do too much too fast and that when ISO-NE considered a shift to a seasonal capacity market — which was part of PJM’s initial proposal that did not make it into the final filing — its stakeholder process spanned years with considerable data produced.

Sotkiewicz said changes to the capacity performance (CP) penalty structure and how it would interact with other market structures isn’t fully understood. He noted that the proposal — which would redefine the annual stop-loss limit to be based on Base Residual Auction clearing prices, rather than the cost of new entry — comes on the heels of FERC’s August approval of changes to the triggers that initiate the performance assessment intervals that expose resources to CP penalties. (See FERC Approves PJM Change to Emergency Triggers.)

Wilson said the CP changes could have a significant impact but that the amount of data that was presented during the CIFP process made it difficult for stakeholders to produce their own estimates of the effect on the capacity performance quantified risks that generators can include in their capacity offers.

“Is this a big thing or a little thing? I’ve never gotten a good answer,” he said, adding that there’s a potential for consumers to take on a significant amount of risk.

Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of coal lobby America’s Power, said the risks present in the capacity market have been “vastly underestimated,” particularly due the number of environmental rules recently enacted and being considered at the federal level. The coal resources present in PJM, which she said met 47% of the incremental increased demand during the December 2022 winter storm, would be particularly at risk if PJM doesn’t consider those rules in its market design.

“With the coal fleet that we have we certainly don’t want to cause more retirements,” she said.

Both David “Scarp” Scarpignato, of Calpine, and Bloodworth said the shift to marginal effective load carrying capability (ELCC) accreditation for all capacity resources would be an improvement. Scarp said ELCC goes beyond just addressing fuel security and would capture the risks of common mode failures.

PJM Chief Outlines Work to be Done Through Clean Energy Transition

PJM CEO Manu Asthana said the RTO is well positioned as it continues to adjust to the entry of renewable energy onto the grid, but there is more work to be done to ensure those resources keep pace with deactivating fossil generators and maintain reliability through extreme weather events.

At the top of PJM’s efforts is the shift to a cluster approach for studying generation interconnection requests to clear a backlog with hundreds of GW in nameplate generation within a few years. He called it “an incredible engineering task” that is being aided by hiring additional planning staff and exploring ways of automating portions of the process.

He noted that PJM also initiated new task forces focused on generation deactivations, reserve certainty and long-term transmission planning, as well as continuing efforts to harmonize the electric and gas markets.

Asthana said he’s concerned PJM’s estimate that 43 GW of generation could retire due to federal environmental rules may be too low. The retirements are expected at the same time load growth is poised to accelerate with hydrogen hubs and artificial intelligence fueling data center proliferation.

While meeting the demand for that energy will require rapid development of new resources, Asthana said only a small number of resources that have cleared the interconnection queue have entered commercial service.

“We know that we have to continue to blaze through the interconnection queue and we’re really laser focused on that, but there are a lot of issues beyond that which have to do with … with cost pressures [and] supply chain pressures that may delay the rate at which those renewable generators show up.”

In addition to seeking to accelerate the rate of new entry, PJM also will “advocate for what we think is critical: which is we’re going to need thermal generation — which is going to include some coal and a lot of gas — to get us through this transition,” he said.

Asthana said outages in other regions during extreme weather underlined how critical grid reliability is. Outages during the February 2021 storm in Texas caused an estimated $300 billion in lost economic activity, while Europe saw around 68,000 deaths last winter related to cold weather, some of which Asthana said was related to high energy prices causing people to not heat their homes adequately.

“The commodity that we provide to our customers is at the fabric of their everyday life,” he said. “ … There’s going to be no excuse if the lights go out for an extended period of time.”

Panel Discusses Potential Changes to PJM Markets

Monday’s sessions also included obstacles to the clean energy transition left unresolved by the CIFP filing and how to ensure that renewable resources are being developed at the pace they’re needed.

Jason Barker, vice president of regulatory affairs for Vitol, said PJM’s markets are the results of decades of fine tuning to the characteristics of thermal generators, which are not universally shared by the newer generation of inverter-based resources. Seasonal or time-of-day markets would more “surgically” capture their benefits and the introduction of storage promises to be a “game-changer” with the correct market design,” he said.

State policies also could play a major role in promoting the development of clean energy by setting a cost for carbon emissions, passing environmental legislation such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and strengthening pathways for consumers to engage in power purchase agreements, he said. “We think states should be more aggressive in setting these carbon valuations.”

Ensuring that renewable developments aren’t held up in PJM’s interconnection queue also will be necessary to allow new resource entry to keep pace with deactivations, Barker said.

Vice President of Planning Ken Seiler said there are about 40 GW of projects with signed interconnection service agreements (ISAs) that have yet to go into service, while just 4 GW have been built so far this year, most of it gas-fired.

“We need to get generation connected to the system and we need to do it expeditiously,” Seiler said during a Tuesday panel.

Abe Silverman, director of Columbia University’s Non-Technical Barriers to the Clean Energy Transition Initiative, said the preliminary results of a survey he conducted of renewable developers with projects in PJM’s interconnection queue suggest there are a multitude of challenges to getting steel in the ground even after receiving an ISA.

One of the reasons he has heard cited is that some stages of the development process, including siting and permitting, cannot begin until developers have received an ISA from PJM. When there was more certainty about when their interconnection studies would be completed, developers could begin some preparatory work, but the uncertainty has increased alongside queue times. He also said developers have pointed to inflationary pressures, macroeconomic factors and the length of the queue in general.

“When we talk about the reliability issues of future retirements in PJM, we really need to talk about the ability to do interconnection as a critical reliability service,” he said.

LS Power Senior Vice President of Wholesale Market Policy Marji Philips said that gas peaker plants will be required as a “last defense” for reliability, but are not receiving the price signals to stay in the market. One of the central challenges for gas resources remains the increased risk that they see over holiday weekends, when they may have to buy multi-day packages of fuel without knowing if they’ll be dispatched and for how long.

She argued that ELCC accreditation works well for intermittent resources like wind and solar, but it doesn’t capture the issues that affect gas-fired resource availability, namely dispatch uncertainty, fuel availability and winterization. The disparate contracts that generators have to procure their fuel and the circumstances under which it may not be delivered would be especially difficult to capture in ELCC, she said. PJM’s CIFP proposal would expand the use of ELCC accreditation to all resource types.

“Peaker performance is dependent on dispatch,” she said.

Calpine’s Scarpignato said the interaction between state renewable energy credits (RECs) and PJM’s energy market design results in many resources entering zero price offers and renewable resources being able to remain profitable even when energy prices are negative. For resources with fuel costs, he said that results in the capacity market becoming increasingly important for their revenues and makes them particularly sensitive to changes to the demand curve, which would be revised under PJM’s filing at FERC.

Silverman said there is tension between states sending a price signal for meeting their clean energy goals and the wholesale energy markets and there will need to be harmonization between the two. Once states have enacted policies, he said they have to be able to understand how they will interact with PJM’s market structures and how any changes contemplated by PJM could impact state goals.

Commissioner Danly Speaks on PJM Markets

Addressing attendees during Tuesday’s lunch, FERC Commissioner James Danly said one of the most pressing issues in PJM’s markets is ensuring that generators can reflect the costs and risks they see in taking on a capacity obligation.

“The first thing we have to do is make sure the generators are able to offer in costs to the markets that reflect their views of the risk assessment. To do otherwise is to place that basic function of a market into the hands of somebody other than the ones who have skin in the game, risks being assumed and profit being sought,” he said.

PJM’s markets should be insulated from external factors, including the “massive subsidies” created by states. He said that one could argue that some participants view PJM’s markets less as a place to compete for energy prices than a forum for seeking subsidies, an issue he suggested is ripe for a filing and connected to the commission’s past orders on the minimum offer price rule.

“One might even argue that the market is not even PJM or any of its mechanisms, the market really is these subsidies that are being chased after and people are attempting to harvest,” he said.

Danly said the grid requires two types of infrastructure: transmission and gas pipelines, the latter of which he said will be needed under even the “most utopian view of what the resource mix may look like down the road.” Building both on the timescale the infrastructure is expected to be needed will require states to undertake permitting reform, he said. In the meantime, PJM will have to position itself to adjust to the external difficulties of building transmission.

Questioned over the possibility of FERC extending its authority over pipelines to require winterization, Danly said that he doesn’t believe there’s a way for FERC to mandate changes. He said the potential for merchant pipeline development is slim given the financing issues established pipeline operators are experiencing.

Danly said the pipeline industry should be approached by groups like the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) with the recognition that its infrastructure was built with a different purpose in mind: maintaining the pressure needed to keep pilot lights on as, opposed to delivering large quantities of fuel to a relatively small number of gas generators.

Changes to Energy and Reserve Markets Discussed

Tuesday’s sessions included a discussion of whether changes to PJM’s energy and ancillary service markets are necessary to address issues PJM identified during the CIFP process and in its Resource Retirements, Replacements and Risks (4R) whitepaper released in February. (See “PJM White Paper Expounds Reliability Concerns,” PJM Board Initiates Fast-track Process to Address Reliability.)

The whitepaper focused on a possible imbalance between thermal generation deactivations through 2030 and the development of new capacity, particularly intermittent resources that may lack the same capacity contribution per MW of nameplate. Initiating the CIFP process concurrent with the release of the whitepaper, the PJM Board of Managers focused the discussion on the capacity market, however many stakeholders said there are issues with other markets that could compromise reliability.

Much of the discussion was focused on the reserve market, which has seen a decline in the response rate since the two tiers of synchronized reserves were consolidated in a market overhaul implemented last October. The Reserve Certainty Senior Task Force (RCSTF) was created last month to explore further reworking several areas of the reserve market.

Sotkiewicz said generators have been receiving mixed signals from PJM during synchronized reserve deployments, with price signals indicating they should decrease their output at the same time PJM dispatchers are telling them to ramp up without any indication of what their output should be.

Rather than creating new products to account for the different characteristics of resources, he said PJM should ensure that the core needs met by reserves, frequency and voltage control can be fulfilled by the resources procured through the market. Not all of that capability needs to come from generation resources, he said.

PJM can tap into the largest battery on the grid — building air temperatures — by creating a market design that brings more load into the market.  “We need to be forward looking with that and think outside the box,” he said.

Susan Bruce, of the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, agreed, saying that demand response, especially from smaller consumers, has been underutilized as reserves.

“It’s a huge untapped part of the equation here. [We] should not just be thinking about the supply side. … We have a lot of load that’s ready to be there,” she said.

Referencing a presentation PJM gave outlining the responses it received from generation operators regarding their low response rate, Bruce said much of the issue appears to be based in operator error and incomplete understanding of how the markets function. Rather than focusing on market design changes, she suggested that providing education should be the starting point for addressing reserve performance. (See “Generators Cite Reasons for Low Synch Reserve Response Rate,” PJM OC Briefs: Oct. 5, 2023.)

She cautioned that the urgency of ensuring that reserves are available shouldn’t get in the way of having a full stakeholder dialogue to produce a fleshed-out solution that market participants understand and are prepared for.

“I think we all feel the press that solutions have to be here yesterday … but at the same time when we go through the stakeholder process, it allows for issues to be vetted well and solutions to be well understood by the market,” she said.

PJM’s Becky Carroll said the RTO is considering ways of including demand more flexibly as it begins work in the RCSTF, where she said the focus is on thinking about all the tools that are available, as well as resource modeling and evaluating capability.

Independent Market Monitor Joseph Bowring said some of the issues PJM cited in pushing for the creation of the RCSTF were misdiagnosed and he doesn’t believe there’s a need for a multi-year issue charge. He, too, expressed skepticism at the need for new products to account for the characteristics or flexibility of resources, stating that attempts to create ramping products in other RTOs have not been successful. Forward commitment and dispatch can fill the desire for more flexibility by allowing PJM to anticipate the need for reserves and call upon resources based on their ability to respond, he said.

Instead of creating more demand for reserves by increasing the amount it procures — a step PJM took in May when it increased the synchronized reserve requirement by 30% — Bowring argued that PJM should only pay resources when they have successfully responded to reserve deployments.

ReliabilityFirst’s Brian Thiry said no single class of generators can meet all the reliability characteristics the grid requires. He said he is concerned that PJM lacks the incentives to maintain the diverse and flexible generation fleet it needs.

As an example, he said, an analysis of California’s black start resources found that when existing resources retire they can be replaced, but grid recovery times could go from a number of hours to days.

“I encourage everyone to keep an open mind on all the capabilities, all the possibilities that are out there,” Thiry said, mentioning dynamic line ratings, distributed energy resources, virtual power plants and new technologies like carbon capture and small modular reactors.

FERC Approves Tariff for SunZia Transmission

FERC on Oct. 20 approved SunZia Transmission’s Open Access Transmission Tariff, which governs how the 550-mile HVDC line will offer new customers firm and non-firm point-to-point service (ER23-2146).

Pattern Energy is developing the transmission line, which is designed to ship renewable power from New Mexico to Arizona. Pattern is also an anchor-shipper on the line, developing several renewable projects in New Mexico.

SunZia has developed a monthly transmission rate of $8.18/kW, and it has based its annual, weekly, daily and hourly rates on that price.

The tariff includes interconnection rules for renewables that want to connect to SunZia, requiring customers to fund all incremental costs that are required to provide them service. In the event SunZia has to be taken out of service for a month or longer, the new interconnection customer will have to pay it back for the loss of any transmission revenue or any income it would have earned from the investment and production tax credits.

FERC found the tariff, including the generator interconnection procedures, to be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.

SunZia’s existing full capacity is subscribed to SunZia Wind (another Pattern subsidiary), but the tariff will be used for future transmission customers. The practice of basing all of its rates on the previously approved $8.18/kW monthly rate is consistent with FERC precedent, the commission said.

The merchant project also laid out plans to update its rates periodically, which is similar to mechanisms other merchant projects have, the commission said. The updates will let SunZia reflect changes in conditions or expenses.

FERC had issued a deficiency notice on the language requiring new interconnection customers to cover SunZia’s losses from any outages that last more than a month, but it ended up accepting it.

“SunZia Transmission explains that, as a merchant transmission developer of an HVDC line, it faces considerable financial risks,” FERC said. “Further, SunZia asserts that an outage would eliminate SunZia Transmission’s ability to provide any service for the duration of the outage.”

FERC has previously recognized that an anchor customer can assist merchant developers in meeting financial challenges unique to merchant development.

In this case, the financial futures of both the SunZia transmission line and the related SunZia Wind projects depend on each other and require certainty that losses from connecting a new customer would be recovered, FERC said.

“SunZia Transmission depends on monthly transmission service charge payments made by SunZia Wind to pay for its costs and to make debt service payments, and SunZia Wind depends on the continued availability of the transmission system to deliver energy in order to pay the transmission service charge and pay its own lenders,” FERC said.

The firm would have to submit a filing to FERC to recover any costs under those provisions, so without commission approval, it would not be able to collect payments from interconnection customers to cover losses from an extended outage.

New York Governor Vetoes Planned Offshore Wind Transmission Act

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has vetoed the Planned Offshore Wind Transmission Act approved by the state Legislature this year.

The legislation (A7764/S6218A) had two purposes: to establish a planning process for transmission capacity for future offshore wind generation and to allow an export cable for the Empire Wind project to run through parkland in the oceanside city of Long Beach.

Hochul said the first aspect is unneeded, as such planning is underway, and the second aspect is inappropriate, because renewable energy development needs to happen with support of the host community, not over its objections.

The Long Beach land matter was more immediate. Given the state of offshore wind development in New York state — almost the entire contracted portfolio, more than 4 GW in total, is in danger of cancellation — the reaction was predictable.

New York Offshore Wind Alliance Director Fred Zalcman said in a prepared statement: “The governor’s actions are not matching her words. As a previously professed champion of offshore wind, we are once again mystified by the governor’s decision to veto this essential authorization and to put another nail in the coffin of the Empire Wind project.”

Equinor, which is developing Empire Wind with bp, said: “The veto of The Planned Offshore Wind Transmission Act undermines New York’s commitment to the energy transition and the role offshore wind must play in achieving the state’s renewable energy mandates. This decision sends another troubling signal to renewable energy developers following [the] action by the New York State Public Service Commission.”

The PSC on Oct. 12 decided not to grant inflation-related cost adjustments to the Beacon, Empire and Sunrise offshore wind projects, along with 86 much smaller land-based wind and solar projects. (See New York Rejects Inflation Adjustment for Renewable Projects.)

Their developers had said they might not be able to commence construction without more money, as costs had increased greatly after they signed their contracts with New York state.

Long Beach became a rallying point because some residents do not want an underground cable running across the barrier island and their neighborhoods. (See ‘What Did We Do to Deserve This?’)

Under New York law, conveying parkland to a nonpublic entity or using it for something other than a park is called “alienation” and requires legislative authorization.

The language of the legislation authorized the city of Long Beach, at its discretion, to alienate roughly an acre of parkland. This left the choice to the city, and Hochul noted the city is opposed to alienation. But she went one step further in her veto message and denied even the choice to city leaders.

“It is incumbent upon renewable energy developers to cultivate and maintain strong ties to their host communities throughout the planning, siting and operation of all large-scale projects,” she wrote.

Other projects have been snagged by the state’s strong home-rule tradition, which can give local communities an outsized role in shaping large-scale development.

Critics of the route through Long Beach were pleased with the veto.

Rep. Anthony Esposito (R) cast it as a victory for a community fighting a deeply unpopular project being forced upon them.

He said in a news release: “Equinor’s attempt to bypass Long Islanders’ overwhelming opposition to the project by utilizing state legislators from New York City to force their corporate endorsed legislation on Nassau County was shameful. I am grateful Governor Hochul has listened to Long Islanders this time, but the fight to preserve our South Shore from Equinor’s corporate greed will continue.”

By contrast, the “planning” aspect of the Planned Offshore Wind Transmission Act was less emotional and more practical. It looks forward with the assumption that New York will want to expand offshore wind beyond the 9 GW of installed capacity goal that state law sets for 2035 and attempts to direct a more coordinated and cohesive transmission planning process to bring all that electricity to customers.

The legislation would have directed the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to lead planning of independent transmission systems. Such shared transmission would minimize costs and environmental or community impacts, it said.

Hochul in her veto message said this is largely duplicative of existing planning requirements, such as New York’s Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act. The PSC has begun meeting its requirements, she wrote.

“To the extent that this bill’s planning requirements are not duplicative, they would cause confusion by assigning contradictory and overlapping planning responsibilities to NYSERDA,” she wrote.

“In light of these concerns, I am constrained to veto this bill.”

CAISO GHG Working Group Seeks Clarity on Problems, Definitions

A meeting of CAISO’s Greenhouse Gas Coordination Working Group on Oct. 19 illustrated the complexity Western stakeholders confront in addressing emissions in the region’s expanding electricity markets — including the challenge of agreeing on basic definitions.

The meeting was the third for the group, a forum for stakeholders to discuss how the cost of GHGs should be accounted for in CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) and Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM). In both markets, the ISO must find ways to strike a balance between the needs of states that price carbon emissions in their economies and those that don’t.

The working group was established to evolve GHG accounting design as a whole, with the goal of WEIM participants developing an accurate system to attribute generator emissions to load across state lines. Stakeholders have identified many uncertainties and are still in the beginning stages of defining current and potential problems that could occur after implementation of the EDAM, which will carry over the WEIM’s current GHG accounting practices until needed changes are identified.

Of the 10 states participating in the WEIM, only two — California and Washington — price carbon through a cap-and-trade system, complicating the pricing of energy into and out of those “GHG zones.”

Further complicating matters is that California and Washington operate separate cap-and-trade programs, increasing the potential for the over- or undercounting of GHGs when accounting for power transfers between the two states. Washington officials expect to decide soon whether to seek to join the joint California-Quebec carbon market, but any such linkage would occur in 2025 at the earliest. (See Analysis Favors Wash. Linkage with Calif. Cap-and-trade Program.)

The working group will also consider how CAISO’s markets in the future might reflect obligations associated with “non-price” GHG policies, such as renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards and renewable energy certificates.

Clarity on Definitions

Last week’s meeting was devoted to discussing problem statements that were submitted by stakeholders that outline current or foreseeable issues regarding emissions attributions. Participants discussed how best to phrase and think about the problem statements and then identified action items to address them. The goal of a problem statement is to determine the root cause of an issue and come up with a solution.

Problems identified included how to account for and control emissions “leakage”; the potential double-counting of emissions between Washington and California; and determining if the current system’s price formation accurately identifies total marginal GHG costs.

Much of the discussion dealt with the wording of the problem statements themselves, rather than trying to solve them. In Problem Statement 1, which describes the uncertainty around whether CAISO’s market correctly identifies the “available surplus” of resources that may be attributed to a GHG zone, the definition of “surplus” was questioned.

“Buried in here is an assumption that there’s an agreed definition of ‘surplus,’” said Clare Breidenich, a consultant speaking for the Western Power Trading Forum. “We do not have that clarity from the California Air Resources Board.”

The assumption is that “surplus” is generation in excess of the load for the market footprint outside of California, Breidenich added, and that it shouldn’t necessarily be the same for all resource types, considering that entities operate differently in the market.

Jessica Zahnow of Puget Sound Energy suggested that looking at historical dispatches and attributions and running counterfactuals (the resource sufficiency evaluation in the WEIM) could help determine surplus and help stakeholders begin to understand if CAISO’s market correctly identifies it.

The discussion about Problem Statement 2 prompted questions about use of the term “secondary dispatch,” which has generally referred to the practice of a power producer directing output from a lower-emitting resource to a market that prices GHGs — such as California — while secondarily firing up an emitting resource to backfill load that would have otherwise been served by the cleaner resource. For states attempting to track and price carbon, the process results in the “leakage” of emissions in accounting for the true source of GHGs.

Problem Statement 2 states that the current attribution process still results in secondary dispatch and that the market lacks sufficient transparency into how often it is occurring. The discussion centered around identifying correct wording in order to best evaluate the issue. Stakeholders raised the concern that the statement assumes “secondary dispatch” and “leakage” are synonymous, when a producer may have to perform secondary dispatch for reasons not related to emissions.

Anja Gilbert, a lead policy developer at CAISO, suggested the two be differentiated and the problem be looked at in terms of leakage rather than secondary dispatch. Todd Ryan, principal market design analyst with Pacific Gas and Electric, echoed the concern.

“To my understanding, secondary dispatch can occur for a host of reasons, including economic displacement, which is the purpose of the Extended Day-Ahead Market and markets in general,” Ryan said. “Leakage is a specific type of secondary dispatch that occurs when resources are inappropriately shuffled in terms of carbon intensity. [The terms] are often used synonymously, but I believe that is incorrect.”

Kallie Wells, senior consultant with Gridwell Consulting, pointed out that the context of the conversation surrounding GHGs indicates that stakeholders are referring to leakage, not secondary dispatch, and that the differentiation should be made.

Gilbert added that a system of monitoring should be put in place to identify leakage when the EDAM goes live, given that CAISO and its stakeholders won’t be able to assess its degree until after implementation.

At the suggestion of CAISO Market Engineering Specialist Kevin Head, the group clarified the problem statement to reflect secondary dispatch “that is not occurring as a result of economic displacement,” but rather because of resource shuffling that leads to the inappropriate sale of non-renewable resources.

Further discussion indicated the need for an agreed-upon definition of leakage in the context of the statement and highlighted uncertainties about what type of leakage the problem statement refers to.

“What exactly are we talking about when we say leakage?” Wells said. “There’s so much gray area, and I think until we are very clear about that, we’re going to keep dancing around the same issue.”

Premature Discussion?

Wells’ comment was representative of a larger theme in the meeting: the need for more precision and a better understanding of how CAISO and its stakeholders should approach potential GHG-related problems in the absence of a way to test them.

Bonnie Blair, an attorney who represents the publicly owned utilities of the “Six Cities” in Southern California, echoed this concern.

“It’s not clear to me, with respect to either of these problem statements, what market we’re talking about” because the EDAM has yet to go live, Blair said. “We have the existing imbalance energy market, which does have a broad footprint and involves attribution of GHGs across [balancing authority areas]. We have the current day-ahead market, which is limited to the CAISO area and, I think, does not involve attribution of GHG impacts; and then we have the EDAM market design, which hasn’t yet been implemented and is not going to be implemented for, I think, two and a half years.”

Gilbert echoed the concern. “I think a complicating factor has been that we only have a live EIM market, and so without a live EDAM market, some of the proposed enhancements for EDAM that are looking to fix some of the issues with the WEIM enhancement can’t be tested until they go live,” she said.

An efficient way to view the problem statements, according to Gilbert, would be thinking about statements that could address potential enhancements that will need to be made in a future policy design phase.

Blair agreed, but she again emphasized the challenge of imagining problems in a system that does not yet exist.

“It provokes me to raise the question about whether it makes sense to try to focus now on fixing a problem that may or may not exist after the enhancements to the GHG process that are built into the EDAM design go into place,” Blair said. “I question whether that may be premature.”

The working group’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 30, when it will continue to address the list of problem statements submitted by stakeholders.

Robert Mullin contributed to this article.