Search
April 24, 2025

Posted on

Data Centers’ Reliability Impacts Examined at FERC Meeting

Sudden trips offline by data centers in Virginia and cryptominers in ERCOT present new reliability challenges that must be managed, NERC Chief Engineer Mark Lauby told FERC at its monthly open meeting April 17.

The grid in Loudoun County, Va., home to the largest concentration of data centers in the world, was experiencing some voltage sensitivities last summer, Lauby testified.

“In July 2024 we saw about a 1,500-MW drop as a result of some system conditions — in this case, switching after a fault on the system,” Lauby said. “And within 50 seconds, three of those voltage excursions occurred, and the load is monitoring that, and when it sees that happen, it comes offline because it wants to protect its cooling load.”

NERC released a report on the incident in January that details the grid conditions before and after the data center load went offline. (See NERC Report Highlights Data Center Load Loss Issues.)

A similar event happened in Loudoun and neighboring Fairfax County, where 1,800 MW of load suddenly dropped off the system. Lauby said while that still is being investigated, he suspects it will be similar to the July 2024 incident.

Texas has seen more frequent but smaller events as grid conditions have caused cryptocurrency mining facilities to trip offline 25 times between November 2023 and this January, leading to 100 to 400 MW of losses in each incident.

“Historically, if we lose generators, it can trip off the grid,” FERC Chair Mark Christie said during the meeting. “Now we’ve got another issue, which is if large load users simultaneously go off together, it affects the frequency and potentially trips off the whole system.”

The grid can be engineered to avoid those cascading outages across multiple data centers to avoid a situation where the grid’s largest single contingency comes from demand (as opposed to a large power plant or transmission line), Lauby said.

“That comes down to engineering, modeling and continuing to work with the industry — in this case, the large load industry and the power industry — to see how we manage that interconnection,” he added.

NERC is considering rule changes to deal with the newfound risk, which is going to be exacerbated as individual data centers’ load grows to the size of major cities. The grid has dealt with large industrial facilities at 100 to 200 MW for decades, but some of the proposals for large data centers run to thousands of megawatts, which compares to the total loads of San Francisco or Washington, D.C., in a single place, Lauby told FERC.

“We need to, obviously, make sure that’s managed well, and the engineering is done to ensure that we minimize the chances for things to happen,” he added.

NERC stood up a Large Loads Task Force in 2024 that is expected to issue papers and guidelines to address the risks associated with the issue. The ERO also is working on industry guidance on large loads, incorporating work from the task force.

Part of that analysis is to determine how to register the loads, either by requiring the customers themselves to register with NERC, or if that is not legally feasible, then getting their load-serving entities to do it for them, Lauby said. Then once the facilities are registered, NERC will craft reliability standards so the chances of such incidents are minimized.

“Large numbers actually really scare me; the potential reliability impact of these drops sound pretty severe,” Commissioner Judy Chang said.

Modeling can help NERC secure the grid against uncontrollable outages of data centers; Chang asked what kind of data are needed to effectuate that.

Losing 1,500 MW of load is akin to one and a half large nuclear units tripping offline, but the grid has reserves that can maintain reliability in such cases, Lauby replied. NERC has the authority to get data from the industry under the Federal Power Act.

“For the loads, they’ve just been good enough to work with us,” Lauby said. “And, so, is that going to be good for the long term? Probably not … [it’s] something we need to think about.”

Large loads tripping offline is one part of the reliability equation when it comes to data centers, with the other key part being meeting their demand with an adequate supply of resources, Lauby said.

“The definition of reliability is adequacy and operation reliability,” he said. “So, we’ve got both problems.”

Posted on

CAISO Pauses Study of New Market Run Proposal for Gas Resources

CAISO on April 16 sidelined a proposal to provide an additional market run for gas resources due to a lack of information on the subject and a need for operational experience with the ISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM).  

The proposed new market run, known as D+1.5, would occur between CAISO’s two-day-ahead market run, D+2, and day-ahead market run. D+1.5 would provide a better estimate of next-day markets as a potential to reduce reliability concerns, said NV Energy, a stakeholder in CAISO’s Gas Resource Management Working Group. 

Currently, CAISO uses two two-day-ahead market processes: D+2 and the residual unit commitment (RUC) look-ahead advisory. Stakeholders raised concerns about the RUC’s timing and forecasting accuracy and said there is a general “lack of confidence” using such information to inform fuel procurement decisions, per CAISO’s latest issue paper on the subject, published in January. 

D+1.5 could provide new information to participants that was not available in time for the D+2 but becomes available and accessible to CAISO. For example, scheduling coordinators could submit new or updated bids, informed by the next-day gas day trading activity, into the day-ahead market to inform the D+1.5, the paper says. 

However, to provide a D+1.5 market run, CAISO would need to establish a new process to collect gas trading data and run new forecasts. If not, D+1.5 would use the same forecasting information already used by the market processes on the trade day. Adding new forecasting services would increase vendor and personnel costs to monitor and maintain the new forecasting suite, the paper says.  

The “highest-priority scope item” for CAISO’s Gas Resource Management Working Group is to provide more market information to participants prior to the day-ahead market to support fuel procurement, the paper says. But the value of a new market run “must be weighed against the cost of gathering new information, running the optimization and validating a new stream of market results made available to market participants,” the paper says. 

“While we support the continued consideration of this new market run, we think it should be after we complete an assessment of D+2 and have some operational experience with EDAM and the new D+2 market run,” Sylvie Spewak, CAISO senior policy developer, said at the April 16 working group meeting. “At this time, we don’t intend on including the D+1.5 proposal in this upcoming straw proposal in detail. Let us know if you disagree with this approach.” 

Posted on

FERC Upholds Preliminary Permit for Pumped Hydro Concept

FERC has upheld the fourth preliminary permit (P-15332) granted in three decades for a pumped hydro concept in southeastern Pennsylvania. 

FERC in November 2024 granted a 48-month preliminary permit to York Energy Storage LLC for an 858-MW facility along the Susquehanna River near Lancaster and York that could produce 1.5 million MWh per year. 

Environmental advocates, local governments and other interested parties protested and requested a rehearing. 

FERC’s April 17 order shot down the various arguments they submitted with their request. 

The ruling states that concerns raised about the potential impact of the YES project — should it be built — are speculative and premature; one of the purposes of a preliminary permit is to give the permittee a chance to determine the potential impacts and design the project to avoid or mitigate them. 

Issuance of a preliminary permit also does not require a finding of public interest or a balancing of interests, FERC wrote; licensing, construction and operation of the YES project might cause environmental and other impacts, but preliminary licensing would not. 

FERC also rejected the contention that it should have found YES unfit for a preliminary permit for reasons including that it is a paper entity, has not demonstrated how it will fund its activities and has a history of noncompliance. FERC wrote that its past practice does not dictate a financial review for a preliminary permit, and that YES has no history of serious violations of hydropower licenses. 

Finally, FERC rejected the argument that it had violated the Federal Power Act by granting multiple preliminary permits for the same project, three of them to entities with a common principal. 

FERC issued two to Mid-Atlantic Energy Engineers LTD in the 1990s and one to Cuffs Run Pumped Storage LLC in 2011. But FERC said in its April 17 order that even if it treated Mid-Atlantic as the same entity as YES, more than 20 years separated the permits, so it is reasonable to treat the YES request as a new application rather than a successive application. 

The issues raised in the rehearing request are speculative, the order reads.  

It concludes: “We continue to find that it is in the public interest to consider such impacts at the licensing stage, when such impacts are more defined, after York Energy has completed preliminary study, thereby resulting in a more accurate and complete record, and that declining to issue a preliminary permit based on speculative impacts or incomplete impacts is not appropriate at this stage of potential development.” 

Posted on

NYISO Cancels 2033 Reliability Need for NYC

NYISO ended the Operating Committee’s meeting April 17 with a surprise announcement: The ISO no longer is concerned about a violation of reliability criteria in New York City in 2033 and has canceled its search for a solution.

Zack Smith, senior vice president of system and resource planning, told the committee that updates to assumptions used in demand forecasting and demographic trends had eliminated the need over the 10-year horizon. Margins still are shrinking because of plant retirements, he said, but not enough to trigger the reliability need.

NYISO officially made the declaration in November 2024 as part of its 2024 Reliability Needs Assessment. It triggered a process in which the ISO solicits solutions, including transmission-based from the local transmission owners, and generation and demand response from market participants. (See NYISO Publishes Final RNA Showing Reliability Need for NYC.)

Kevin Lang, a partner with Couch White who represents the city at the ISO, asked if the forecast included the completion of Empire Wind 1, an offshore wind project that just the day before was ordered to halt construction by the Trump administration. (See Feds Move to Halt Construction of Empire Wind 1.)

Smith affirmed that it was and that NYISO was confident that even a “significant delay” would not have changed the finding. And even if the project ultimately does not go forward, it would not significantly impact the ISO’s reliability margins, he said.

There will be a full discussion of the findings at the Electric System Planning Working Group’s next meeting, scheduled for May 6, Smith said.

Posted on

Northwest Faces Increased Fire Risk in July, BPA Says

The Northwest faces “above-normal, significant wildland fire potential” in July 2025, and the Bonneville Power Administration is taking steps to enhance mitigation efforts like public safety power shutoffs (PSPS) and improving communication. 

Citing a seasonal outlook by the National Interagency Fire Center, Kelly Miller, supervisory land surveyor at BPA, said the region is “looking pretty good until … July.” 

“In July, the significant wildland fire potential increases quickly, and we’re doing our best to prepare prior to that,” Miller said during an April 17 public update on BPA’s wildfire mitigation and PSPS processes. 

BPA is working on updates to the fourth iteration of its wildfire mitigation plan, slated for release in May 2026. However, the agency has continuously improved mitigation processes through lessons learned since the release of the first BPA wildfire plan in 2021, Miller said. 

The burn area in BPA’s service territory equaled 40.8% of the national burn area. More than 3.2 million acres burned by the end of FY24, an almost three-fold increase over the 10-year average, BPA stated in its 2024 annual report. (See BPA Hit FY24 Reliability Targets Despite Wildfires, Load Records.) 

BPA has identified several areas for improvement following extensive tests and training exercises, according to Miller. 

“We don’t always have ample advanced warning about impending weather,” Miller said. “Sometimes weather comes on very quickly, as you can imagine, and we have to make some very quick decisions. We also realize that there are many downstream load effects on the energy system that are hard to quantify, and we are working with our distribution customers to have a better understanding of that.” 

| National Interagency Fire Center

“Communication is a big piece of our public safety power shutoff events, and so we continue to make improvements to that, again, both internally and externally, how we can have more awareness for our customers,” Miller added. 

BPA issued PSPS four times in 2024, which led to five line de-energizations, according to the presentation. 

BPA closely collaborates with other agencies in its wildfire mitigation work. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory provides wildfire modeling to BPA. BPA also coordinates wildfire efforts with the U.S. Forest Service, among others. 

The agency also has explored different technological solutions, like weather sensors and smoke detection cameras “to see how we might be able to improve in the future,” Miller said. 

BPA follows industry standards and has created its own design and construction standards specific to its transmission assets, according to Miller. One notable standard implemented in 2024 includes placing fire-resistant wraps around transmission poles and installing more non-wood poles. 

Miller noted the new standards helped save multiple poles during a fire near Keller, Wash., in July 2024. 

Posted on

FERC OKs Final SPP Markets+ Compliance Filing

FERC said in a letter order April 17 that it has accepted SPP’s proposed compliance revisions to its Markets+ tariff that clarify five issues (ER24-1658). 

The commission accepted SPP’s tariff in January 2025 but asked the grid operator for further clarification in five areas: transmission availability, transmission opt-outs, Markets+ transmission contributor responsibilities, resource-aggregation mitigation and the seasonal hydroelectric offer curve’s mitigation methodology. 

FERC said the proposed revisions comply with its directives in the January order and accepted the modifications. 

SPP’s legal counsel told RTO Insider the compliance filing amounted to clarifying six sentences in its application. One of those was the same sentence written twice. 

SPP first filed its Markets+ tariff in March 2024. FERC responded in July with a deficiency letter outlining 16 issues to be addressed. The RTO’s response in January resulted in the commission’s approval. (See SPP Markets+ Tariff Wins FERC Approval.) 

Operations Review

FERC on March 31 granted in part and denied in part Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s request for transmission rate incentives for three 345-kV projects in North Dakota’s portion of the Bakken Formation (EL24-140). 

The commission granted Basin’s request for abandoned-plant and hypothetical capital structure incentive for two of the projects but denied the latter incentive for the third, the 33-mile Roundup-Kummer Ridge project.  

FERC found Basin’s request for a 50-50 debt-to-equity hypothetical capital structure incentive for the Roundup-Kummer Ridge project had not demonstrated the project had any remaining risks or challenges given that the in-service date was in the past. The line was energized in December 2024. 

All three projects were identified as part of the SPP 2021 Integrated Transmission Planning’s 10-year assessment. 

Commission Chair Mark Christie both concurred and dissented in part with a separate statement. He agreed with the capital structure incentive’s denial for the Roundup-Kummer Ridge project and dissented with the approval of the other two incentives. Christie said he dissented on the same reasoning as his prior dissents on the topic, where he has argued FERC should revisit granting such transmission incentives because they unfairly transfer wealth and risk. 

Posted on

End Users Push MISO for More Intensive Cost Overrun Evals on Tx Projects

MISO’s end users continue to call for a more stringent variance analysis, the review process MISO uses to investigate transmission projects that incur cost overruns or encounter other difficulties. 

At MISO’s April 15 cost allocation meeting, attorney Ken Stark, representing end-use customers, called for more “insight and transparency into” the variance analysis as well as a lower, 10% threshold on cost overruns to trigger the analysis. 

Stark said the Organization of MISO States (OMS), or the Independent Market Monitor, could play a role in evaluating project costs as part of the analysis. He said OMS and the IMM could sit in on MISO’s confidential initial inquiry stage, then offer advice to the RTO.  

Stark said MISO’s Board of Directors could use an expanded authority to review and issue a final determination on triggered projects, either accepting cost increases, recommending changes or making the call to suspend or cancel projects. 

The end-use sector said MISO also should consider incorporating a “feedback loop,” where after a variance analysis, MISO publishes a proposed mitigation plan open to stakeholders’ reactions over 30 days. Stark also said the RTO could file an annual report with FERC summarizing any variance analyses it performed.  

The end-use customer sector and the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers have said MISO’s 25% cost overrun trigger to study regional projects is too high and should be lowered to about 10%. (See Stakeholders Want More from MISO on Tx Project Cost Containment.)  

MISO staff perform variance analyses on regionally cost-shared transmission projects that encounter schedule delays, permitting challenges or significant design changes or experience at least a 25% cost increase from original estimates. The studies also are triggered when developers find themselves unable to complete the project or if they default on the terms of their developer agreement. 

After completing the analysis, MISO can either let a project stand, develop a mitigation plan for it, cancel it or assign it to different developers if possible. A committee of MISO employees selected by executives makes calls on how to deal with such projects. 

Stark said SPP’s business practice manuals require projects to get a check-in at a 10% overage and undergo a review at 20%.  

“Given the sheer investment that’s happening, even a 10% overrun is significant from a cost standpoint,” Stark said. “We feel very strongly that the trigger should be lower given the lack of projects that go through the process.”  

Werner Roth, an economist with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, said he was uncomfortable with OMS conducting an additional review on cost increases in cases where projects haven’t yet been assigned a proceeding at a state commission.  

Sustainable FERC Project’s Natalie McIntire said she’s concerned a more sensitive study process would have MISO reviewing otherwise routine cost increases.  

“There are a variety of reasons for all kinds of cost increases for all products we use day to day,” she said. “We don’t want to have this sort of thing triggered for every project MISO approves.”  

Stark agreed that he didn’t want MISO to be “bogged down.”  

Other stakeholders said the IMM shouldn’t be prescribed transmission monitoring duties at a time when MISO is seeking to clarify with FERC whether the IMM should be involved in its transmission planning activities at all. (See MISO Intent on Answers as to IMM Role in Tx Planning.)  

Stark said another independent third party could evaluate projects. He said MISO could benefit from a set of “third party, disinterested eyes” to make sure MISO gets the best transmission construction outcomes.  

Some transmission owner representatives said they weren’t sure if dropping the threshold would accomplish much. American Transmission Co.’s Greg Levesque said it seems the RTO would spend more money for an independent review just to conclude the projects are necessary and should continue. 

ITC’s Cynthia Crane said the end-use customers haven’t presented a “compelling case” that MISO’s current setup is lacking. Crane said it doesn’t seem worth upending the roles and responsibilities of state regulators, the IMM and the MISO board.  

Stark said there should be more attention on containing costs for transmission projects.  

MISO maintains it doesn’t need to increase its threshold to evaluate projects. “We think we’re at the right spot,” Jeremiah Doner said.  

MISO has said it can indicate more clearly to stakeholders when it completes a variance analysis or develops an action plan. But it warned it can’t always share confidential project information. 

Staff plan to appear before stakeholders at the May cost allocation meeting with some minor edits to its variance analysis. The amendments would focus on MISO’s notification and communication commitments to stakeholders when it’s conducting a variance analysis. 

MISO is conducting one variance analysis now, investigating a 2.5-time jump in costs on one of its long-range transmission projects from its first portfolio. Incumbent developer Northern Indiana Public Service Co.’s 345-kV Morrison Ditch-Reynolds-Burr Oak-Leesburg-Hiple line in Illinois and Indiana now is expected to cost $675 million, up from an estimated $261 million. (See Cost Overruns on Project in 1st LRTP Prompt MISO Analysis.)  

“We will get to a determination this year,” Vice President of System Planning Aubrey Johnson said during March board week, though he didn’t have a specific date to expect MISO’s conclusion.  

Posted on

Louisiana PSC Scraps Statewide Energy Efficiency Program

The Louisiana Public Service Commission abruptly pulled the plug on its long-awaited, statewide energy efficiency program weeks after selecting a contractor to measure savings.

The commission voted 3-2 along party lines at an April 16 meeting to “cease working toward” its statewide energy efficiency program that was more than a decade in the making. A companion vote that would have directed commission staff to draft new energy efficiency rules for a public entity program failed, with Commissioner Jean-Paul Coussan flipping his vote for the second roll call due to what he called confusing language. Commissioners Foster Campbell and Davante Lewis voted against cutting the statewide program and the new rule directive.

The commission terminated its contracts with APTIM to administer the program and Tetra Tech to measure savings of the program. The decision came less than a month after commissioners selected Tetra Tech’s bid for measurement and verification of energy savings. (See Louisiana PSC Leaves Statewide Energy Efficiency Program As Is For Now.)

Chair Mike Francis, who introduced the motion to end the program through a supplemental agenda published fewer than 48 hours prior to the meeting, said an independently operated energy efficiency program appeared to be too confusing and too expensive.

The meeting took place at a golf resort in Many, La., a more than three-hour drive from the PSC offices.

Lewis pointed out the commission was cutting the program before even receiving APTIM’s proposal or modeling. The contractor would have submitted details on its program design May 1.

The third-party, statewide program had been in the works at the PSC since 2010, when the commission retained a consulting firm to draft rules. The PSC finally authorized the program in April 2024.

Logan Burke, of consumer watchdog Alliance for Affordable Energy, said it’s illogical for the commission to cancel a statewide program when “residential utility bills are unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of people in our state.” Burke pointed out that Louisiana households on average use 46% more electricity than the average American household.

“Why would the commission consider ending the only program that residents and businesses have to manage their bills and keep the lights on?” she asked rhetorically at the meeting. “We are decades behind on addressing energy waste. And so, it doesn’t matter how low the rate is if we’re just throwing our money out of the cracks around our doors and windows.”

Burke said the “rational” thing to do is to finishing standing up the energy efficiency program.

“When will we acknowledge that what we’ve been doing isn’t working?” she said. “What is a more conservative value than eliminating waste?”

“Don’t vote to end the program that you barely got started,” Lake Charles resident James Hiatt urged. He said the vote seemed emblematic of a “backwoods, back deal, good ol’ boys” system. Hiatt added that utilities may have their “thumb on the scale” when it comes to designing programs, suggesting it’s not in their interest to help ratepayers lessen usage.

After the meeting, Burke called the vote “a betrayal of the process and the people.” Burke said a third-party model could have delivered six times the savings of utilities’ programs at about half the cost per kilowatt hour.

The alliance called on the public to contact their commissioners to reverse the vote.

Cleco Power counsel Mark Kleehammer requested that the commission continue allowing utility-led programs, saying they’re the most inexpensive means of implementing energy efficiency. Kleehammer estimated about 5% of customers participate in Cleco’s in-house energy efficiency program.

Larry Hand, vice president of regulatory and public affairs at Entergy Louisiana, estimated that 5 to 8% of customers participate in the utility’s energy efficiency program. Entergy Louisiana uses APTIM to supervise the program.

Louisiana’s utility-led program is set to expire at the end of 2025. The current program allows utilities to recoup revenue when sales volume drops due to efficiency measures.

Commissioner Eric Skrmetta suggested it’s not fair that most customers are paying for the efficiency efforts of such a small slice of ratepayers.

Skrmetta also said the commission was merely canceling the third-party administration model, not eliminating an efficiency program altogether.

“We are going to have an energy efficiency program, but we’ve got to look at what we’re going to do,” he said.

Lewis said the utilities’ low participation rates reinforce the need for a standardized, statewide program that’s better publicized and understood.

At one point, Commissioner Campbell referred to the motion as “gobbledygook” because it wasn’t clear whether the vote also would terminate Louisiana’s current utility-led, quick-start program. Commissioners ultimately separated the failed directive into its own motion and amended it to make it clearer that utility-led programs would remain an option as the PSC worked toward a different program.

Campbell repeatedly asked for a monthlong stay on the vote to better understand what he was voting for.

Lewis pointedly asked Kleehammer and Hand whether they would recommend a public entities program model nationwide. The question led to a heated exchange over whether the directive motion as written would exclude utility-led efficiency programs from consideration under whichever new paradigm the commission adopts. Other commissioners cut off Lewis’ line of questioning.

“I understand the night is late, but this is what we get when we add an agenda item 48 hours before that’s extremely important. So, I mean if that’s the way we’re going to start doing business around here, it’s going to be a different game. Because I have issues … and I’m not going to be disrespected just because I have questions,” Lewis said of the five-and-a-half-hour meeting.

Posted on

Feds Move to Halt Construction of Empire Wind 1

The Trump administration is moving to halt offshore construction off the New York coast of the fully permitted Empire Wind 1 offshore wind farm.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum posted April 16 on “X” that he had directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to bring an immediate halt to all construction activities on the $7 billion project until it could undergo further review.

The move would appear to be the first stop-work order issued under a president who vowed to block offshore wind development during his campaign.

Hours after his inauguration Jan. 20, President Trump issued a memorandum halting new offshore wind leasing activity, directing a cessation of new permitting, and ordering a review of all permitting practices.

In his post, Burgum said Interior was following those directives and said there is a suggestion the Biden administration rushed through its approval of Empire Wind without sufficient analysis.

While BOEM did engage in a flurry of activity as Biden was a lame duck — culminating in the rapid approval of SouthCoast Wind’s construction and operations plan the last full weekday of Biden’s presidency — Empire Wind has been on track for much longer.

BOEM approved the construction and operation plan for Empire Wind in February 2024.

Developer Equinor has been through some major financial gyrations with the project — it canceled the New York offtake contracts for Empire Wind 1 and 2, renegotiated a much more expensive contract for Empire 1 and paused Empire 2.

But it did have its regulatory ducks in a row.

Despite the potentially existential threat Trump was holding over the entire offshore wind sector, Equinor took a final investment decision on Empire 1 in late 2024 and announced the close of $3 billion in financing at the start of 2025. The 810-MW facility had an expected 2027 commercial operation date.

Equinor had little to say April 16. A spokesperson told NetZero Insider via email:

“We have just received a notification from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management regarding our Empire Wind 1 project, which has been in construction since 2024. We will engage directly with BOEM and the Department of Interior to understand the questions raised about the permits we have received from authorities. We will not comment about the potential consequences until we know more.”

The renewable energy community was aghast at the development and had more to say.

Oceantic Network CEO Liz Burdock commented:

“Stopping work on the fully federally permitted Empire Wind 1 offshore project should send chills across all industries investing in and holding contracts with the United States Government. Preventing a permitted and financed energy project from moving forward sends a loud and clear message to all businesses — beyond those in the offshore wind industry — that their investment in the U.S. is not safe. We urge the Department of Interior to lift this order immediately to restore a predictable and equitable environment for the buildout of critical energy resources that help secure our energy future and independence.”

American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet said:

“Halting construction of fully permitted energy projects is the literal opposite of an energy abundance agenda. With skyrocketing energy demand and increasing consumer prices, we need streamlined permitting for all domestic energy resources. Doubling back to reconsider permits after projects are under construction sends a chilling signal to all energy investment.”

Several New York organizations said jointly:

“By halting construction for Empire Wind I, President Trump is threatening Long Island’s energy independence and reliability, putting laborers out of work, undermining our efforts to combat coastal erosion that puts entire communities at risk, and causing dirty air and environmental degradation. … The Administration is breaking the law while prioritizing the interests of their fossil fuel donors at the expense of working families — a reckless, dangerous move that turns back the clock on progress.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) cited the benefits Empire Wind already is yielding to the Empire State and said:

“As Governor, I will not allow this federal overreach to stand. I will fight this every step of the way to protect union jobs, affordable energy and New York’s economic future.”

Equinor secured the lease area in the New York Bight in March 2017 and has been working since then to develop it.

Work began onshore first, including New York City port construction that was launched with great fanfare using an army of more than a thousand workers at a cost approaching $900 million.

More recently, and with no fanfare at all, Equinor moved to begin laying rock that will stabilize turbine foundations.

That may be what prompted Burgum’s instructions to BOEM.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R), a strong offshore wind opponent representing the New Jersey shore, wrote April 1 to Burgum about Equinor planning to start construction despite Trump’s memorandum and asking him to “do everything in your power to halt Equinor’s underhanded rush to begin piledriving and block construction until the critical assessment can be completed.”

In a subsequent news release, Smith said:

“It’s an alarming development that flies in the face of the comprehensive review of offshore wind ordered by President Trump in his January 20th executive order. The Norwegian company’s intention here is clear, it is trying to push through its questionable project based on the rubber-stamp approval received from the Biden Administration.”

In comments to Bloomberg on March 6, Burgum reiterated the administration’s criticisms of offshore wind but said that existing late-stage projects would be reviewed differently from the early stage projects, implying perhaps that they might have a better chance at proceeding through construction.

Posted on

NERC Standards Committee Approves IBR Posting

At their monthly meeting April 16, members of NERC’s Standards Committee agreed to post several reliability standards and associated materials aimed at satisfying a FERC directive on inverter-based resources for formal comment and balloting.

The four proposed IBR standards all arise from FERC’s Order 901, issued in 2023, which required NERC to develop standards to improve the reliability of IBRs, including solar, wind, fuel cell and battery storage facilities. (See FERC Orders Reliability Rules for Inverter-Based Resources.) NERC separated its work under the order into four milestones, the second of which concerns data sharing and model validation for all IBRs, whether or not they are registered with NERC. This milestone must be met by November.

Three of the standards were developed by the team for Project 2022-02 (Uniform modeling framework for IBRs):

    • MOD-032-2 — Data for power system modeling and analysis (found on page 52 of the meeting agenda)
    • IRO-010-6 — Reliability coordinator data specification and collection (page 94)
    • TOP-003-8 — Transmission operator and balancing authority data and information specification and collection (page 113)

Also approved for posting were MOD-033-3 (Steady-state and dynamic system model validation, found on page 21), a product of Project 2021-01 (System model validation with IBRs), and definitions for “model verification” and “model validation” developed by Project 2020-06 (Verifications of models and data for generators).

For all three projects, NERC requested that the SC grant waivers to authorize reducing the normal 45-day comment and ballot periods. In the case of the Project 2022-02 and Project 2021-01 standards, this meant a potential reduction to as few as 30 calendar days; for the Project 2020-06 definitions, the proposed timeline could be as few as 25 days. NERC Director of Standards Development Jamie Calderon explained that the comment periods needed to be shortened so the project teams have time to review comments ahead of a workshop planned for the summer.

Several members warned that setting the comment periods so short could put pressure on industry stakeholders, particularly because all three projects covered similar ground and would require comment from the same set of subject matter experts. Attendees worried the experts might not be able to give each project the time it needed.

To prevent overloading industry, Sean Bodkin of Dominion Energy suggested NERC post the projects with staggered deadlines. After debate between committee members and NERC staff, the SC eventually agreed to modify the waivers for each posting to allow as few as 25 calendar days for comment on the Project 2020-06 definitions, 35 days for the Project 2021-01 standards and 30 days for the Project 2022-02 standards.

Members also expressed concern that development on the three projects had proceeded slower than expected, creating the need to shorten commenting timelines. Michael Brytowski, standards specialist at Great River Energy, recalled that NERC held a workshop in January dedicated to the upcoming Milestone 3 IBR projects, and he wondered why the ERO had not been able to post them earlier.

“Back in January … we were looking at a decent amount of time to process this,” Brytowski said. “Now we’re up against the wall with these three projects posted simultaneously. What has happened in that 90 days [since the workshop] that has put us in this position?”

Calderon said that because the three projects were so closely related, the ERO needed “to make sure that [it] put in a robust amount of information,” which required close coordination with all three drafting teams.

“These are complicated projects, [and] coming out of the workshop this January, we did identify that there was a substantive amount of information that we had to consider,” Calderon said. “So all of that was part of what led to the delay here, and [why] it was brought forward in April as opposed to March.”

Updates to CIP, Cold Weather Standards

After dealing with the IBR issues, the SC attended to two more relatively minor standards actions.

First, members voted to approve errata changes to five Critical Infrastructure Protection standards that NERC’s Board of Trustees submitted to FERC in July 2024. (See NERC Sends Virtualization Standards to FERC.) The standards are awaiting approval from the commission.

At issue in the CIP standards was the term “electronic access control and monitoring system” (EACMS), which NERC Manager of Standards Development Alison Oswald explained should have been written with an “or” instead of “and” to match the definition that Chair Todd Bennett, of Associated Electric Cooperative Inc., noted has been in NERC’s Glossary of Terms “for quite some time now.”

The committee approved correcting the submitted standards, which will require a supplemental filing to FERC but not any further industry comment or ballot.

Finally, the SC voted to accept a standard authorization request for a project that will revise EOP-012-3 (Extreme cold weather preparedness and operations), which NERC recently submitted to FERC. This project will focus on tweaking the standard from a Canadian perspective “to reflect the geographical differences” between Canada and the U.S., and the varying regulatory frameworks between Canadian provinces.

The SC agreed to authorize posting of the SAR for a 30-day formal comment period and to authorize solicitation of members for the drafting team. Oswald explained that NERC “would specifically be soliciting for Canadian members” for the team.