Search
`
November 5, 2024

Posted on

Bill to Expand Powers of Wash. Siting Council Passes Senate

Washington Senate Democrats last week greenlit a bill that would expand the authority and stature of the body that makes siting decisions for energy facilities throughout the state.

The Senate passed House Bill 1812 on a mostly partisan 29-20 vote on Thursday. The tweaked bill now goes back to the House for approval. The House passed the original bill with a bipartisan 95-3 majority.

Introduced by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D), chairman of the House Environment and Energy Committee, HB 1812 would take Washington’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) outside the umbrella of its parent, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and make it an independent agency.

Currently comprising representatives from several state agencies, the EFSEC makes recommendations to the governor for final decisions on the placement of wind and solar farms and other energy resources.

Under existing rules, a wind or solar developer can opt to seek state approval instead of obtaining county permits by going directly through EFSEC. Or a developer can choose to have the appropriate county government handle the permitting, sidestepping the council.

Fitzgibbon’s bill would not alter that practice but instead extend the EFSEC’s jurisdiction to clean energy product manufacturing facilities, renewable natural gas facilities and hydrogen production plants. The bill also would require the Washington Department of Commerce to meet with rural stakeholders and to prepare reports on those meetings, including recommendations on how to more equitably distribute costs and benefits of energy projects to rural communities.

The bill would direct a joint Senate-House committee to review inequities during the siting of large alternative energy projects with a report due by Dec. 1, 2023.

“This is creation of a more efficient and streamlined process,” Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D), the Senate’s champion on climate issues, said last Thursday. 

Senate Republicans blasted the bill as taking local governments and local people out of the picture when decisions are made on siting wind turbines and solar farms. A controversy over a proposed wind farm in southeastern Washington lurks in the background of the debate over the legislation.

Scout Clean Energy of Boulder, Colo., has proposed building up to 224 wind turbines — each about 500 feet tall — on 112 square miles of mostly private land in the Horse Heaven Hills just south of Kennewick in Benton County. (See Wind Project Sows Controversy in Horse Heaven.) County commissioners and many Kennewick residents oppose the project because they don’t want wind turbines cluttering their view of the hills. Scout has opted to seek approval from the EFSEC instead of the Benton County government.

“The reason [HB 1812] is controversial is that Benton County has its local control taken away,” Sen. Perry Dozier (R) said during Thursday’s vote.

A common refrain from the state’s critics of wind and solar farms is that rural Eastern Washington hosts most of the facilities while the electricity goes to heavily populated Western Washington. 

Meanwhile, a Republican bill — HB 1871 — to install a moratorium on EFSEC decisions through 2023, died in the House committee chaired by Fitzgibbon. 

On Thursday, Republican senators portrayed Fitzgibbon’s EFSEC bill as taking away more power from county governments, leading to Olympia bureaucrats deciding the fate of Eastern Washington farmlands. 

“These projects are not in industrial areas, but in alfalfa fields,” said Sen. Judy Warnick (R).

“It’s really a shortcut around local government,” said Sen. Keith Wagoner (R)

Sen. Ron Muzzall (R) said: “Are we willing to disenfranchise local governments and local people?”

“The only thing predictable about this is we’ll see more wind farms on our side of Washington,” Sen. Curtis King (R) said.

Posted on

New Washington Law Gives Tribes Oversight on Climate Spending

Washington’s Senate unanimously passed a bill Friday that requires the state to consult with local tribes when it allocates certain climate change funds to projects that might affect tribal resources.

House Bill 1753 now goes to Gov. Jay Inslee for his signature.

Rep. Debra Lekanoff (D) of the Tlingit tribe, and the only Native American in the Washington legislature, introduced the bill to compensate for Inslee’s 2021 veto of a similar plank in a major cap-and-trade law in industrial emissions. Inslee faced political blowback after vetoing that provision and requested the plank be returned as a bill this session.

Because most of Washington’s tribes are federally recognized through treaties — with most signed in 1855 — they are considered sovereign governments and not as special interest groups or constituents in numerous dealings with the state and local governments. A tiny number of tribes did not sign treaties, which put them in a gray area in this distinction.

The state’s cap-and-trade law passed last year is expected to produce hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. (See Wash. Becomes 2nd State to Adopt Cap-and-trade.) Other than money allocated to transportation and health projects, the rest of the money goes to a “Capital Investment Account” to pay for most climate change measures.

When money from the Capital Investment Account is targeted, Lekanoff’s bill requires the appropriate state agencies to identify impacts on local tribes, such as water and fishing rights, religious sites and other cultural matters. A tribal government then has the right to halt a project until it and any other affected tribes can consult with the state. Such consultations could be expanded into a formal review, which could transition to mediation.

While those steps are going on, the state cannot perform any formal planning or release any funding. HB 1753 also applies to any local government seeking money from the state Capital Investment Account.

Posted on

As Climate Changes, Weather Becomes Obsession for New England Grid, State Officials

“If you don’t like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes,” goes a saying attributed to Mark Twain.

State officials and grid operators in New England are seeing more and more weather they don’t like, but they don’t have a few minutes to wait. In the wake of last year’s crisis in Texas, and with the growth of renewable energy technology reliant on fluctuating sunlight and wind, weather and forecasting have turned into something of an obsession in the region.

In Massachusetts, state officials started having weekly meetings this winter to pore over the latest data from ISO-NE, paying close attention to weather and load forecasts and oil reserves.

Patrick Woodcock 2022-03-07 (RTO Insider LLC) FI.jpgPatrick Woodcock, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources | © RTO Insider LLC

“I’m one of those people that never watches the weather,” said Patrick Woodcock, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. “But I have never paid more attention to the weather than this winter.”

Before the winter started, ISO-NE turned a spotlight on the weather, warning that extended cold snaps could lead to blackouts in the region this year.

“Watching what played out in Texas, and realizing that most people in this region don’t understand how vulnerable we are when it gets cold, we thought that it’s time for us to start communicating more openly about these risks,” CEO Gordon van Welie told reporters in December. (See ISO-NE: New England Could Face Load Shed in Cold Snaps.)

So far, New England has dodged a bullet, with limited cold weather and only a few brief moments of strained conditions on the grid, but the worries haven’t gone away.

“We can’t control the weather, and we can’t always see it coming early enough to react to it,” ISO-NE spokesperson Matt Kakley said. “It’s outside of our control. So we are focused on it, and that’s why we want to make sure people understand the conditions under which we’re most at risk.”

Changing Weather, Growing Challenge

Part of the difficulty of adjusting to weather is that it’s changing significantly as the planet warms.

Jason Shafer 2022-03-07 (RTO Insider LLC) FI.jpgJason Shafer, atmospheric sciences professor at Northern Vermont University | © RTO Insider LLC

Much of the research into the effects of climate change on storms has focused on hurricanes, but blizzards in the Northeast are changing too, said Jason Shafer, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Northern Vermont University.

“Warmer and wetter climates mean that more snowstorms are going to be closer to freezing,” Shafer said at a recent renewable energy conference in Boston. “More wet snow causes more grid impacts.”

Those more intense storms are windier too, and wind is one of the biggest hazards for grid reliability, he said.

“Our climate is relatively resilient in the Northeast … but the risks are going to get stronger because of extreme weather becoming a little stronger,” Shafer said.

It’s a problem that ISO-NE has recognized in its rhetoric, and on which it’s starting to take action.

“It’s obvious that climate change is producing more volatile weather and extreme weather, and we need to factor that into our planning,” Kakley said.

The grid operator, again motivated by events in Texas and California, recently launched a study on the operational impact of extreme weather events, in partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute.

The probabilistic energy security study will use climate data to model extreme weather and its impact on the grid, employing ISO-NE’s 21-day energy forecast tool.

“Extreme weather events in Texas and California have made it apparent that multiday or longer energy deficiencies have serious consequences to residents and the economy,” ISO-NE said in its description of the project.

The Solar Question

The other big factor that has the grid operator paying increasingly closer attention to the weather is the influx of renewable resources to the region, which see their output shift based on even small fluctuations in sunlight, the wind or precipitation.

Jennifer Schilling 2022-03-07 (RTO Insider LLC) FI.jpgJennifer Schilling, vice president of grid modernization at Eversource Energy | © RTO Insider LLC

“The power flows on the system are changing very rapidly, so you need, for instance, to know if it’s a cloudy day; are we going to have a thunderstorm that’s going to come in; when is it going to be sunny?” said Jennifer Schilling, vice president for grid modernization at Eversource Energy. “What it took to operate the system even five or 10 years ago is very different than what it takes today.”

The patterns of solar in particular have vexed grid managers in California and elsewhere, and New England isn’t immune to the now well known “duck curve” problem, which causes unique patterns of energy demand to navigate. (See New England’s Duck Curve Days Chart Solar Growth.)

Renewable generators are also inherently more vulnerable to certain weather impacts. In Vermont, for example, solar panels lose about 5 to 10% of their effectiveness from snow cover, Shafer said. “This is a hard problem. Just a little bit of snow on a solar panel … is a big deal.”

Kakley noted that as more and more solar comes onto the grid, the consequences of changes in weather grow.

“A 10% increase in clouds might be a 400-MW drop in production. We need to be prepared to make up for that in other resources,” Kakley said. “It’s trying to get more information; better information; more accurate information. When you talk to the forecasters and the control room, more information is always going to help them do their jobs better.”

There’s increasingly powerful technology that can help bring in that information, such as sky imagers that can help with hourly forecasts; better satellite data for hours-ahead predictions; and weather forecast models for day-ahead looks at the conditions.

“We can do this. There are tools out there,” Shafer said. “I think there’s a lot of opportunity, a lot of dots we need to connect.”

ISO-NE, which already contracts with four forecasting companies to get weather information and also employs its own meteorologist to track weather impacts on the grid, is looking to boost its capabilities.

In a recent budget report to federal regulators, the grid operator said that it is expanding its forecasting to 23 cities from the current eight and adding two new “weather concepts” to its forecasts to get more granular information. It’s also bringing on new vendors to add to its behind-the-meter solar PV forecasts.

“The science behind forecasting has improved, and we want to make sure we’re using the best software available,” Kakley said.

Posted on

NJ Enviros: Heat Pumps Can Cut Building Emissions, Costs

New Jersey could dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings – the state’s second largest source of emissions – by replacing fossil-fueled boilers with heat pumps and other electric appliances and beefing up incentives for the equipment, according to a recent report from the New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

Heat pumps can replace furnaces or boilers, and “handle the heating needs of well-insulated homes in the Northeast without backup systems,” according to the report by the Acadia Center, a nonprofit environmental and policy group. Combining heat pumps with other electric appliances and weatherization can result in energy bill saving of almost 50%, the report says.

Often described as air-conditioners in reverse, heat pumps extract heat from outside air, concentrate it and push it into a home. Due to recent improvements in the technology, heat pumps can operate effectively even in sub-zero temperatures, according to the report.

Yet New Jersey’s incentive programs lag behind those of neighboring states, the foundation and other environmental groups said at a press conference Tuesday. They called on state government to develop policies that would offer building owners incentives big enough to reduce the cost of a heat pump, or other electric appliance, to the same cost as a fossil-fuel heater or boiler.

“Just like we have with wind, solar and electric vehicles, New Jersey must be ambitious,” said Eric Miller, New Jersey energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The state “must design and implement comprehensive building electrification programs that make technologies such as cold climate heat pumps, accessible to the residents and businesses of the state through a coordinated whole of government approach,” Miller said.

“Cold climate heat pumps can work in New Jersey’s climate even on the coldest days,” he said. Heat pumps “can decrease average energy bills for New Jersey’s residents [and] can significantly decrease pollution from New Jersey’s buildings.”

Savings, at a Cost

According to the report, data on New Jersey’s housing stock, weather and utility rates show that the average new home could save about $50 a year if it installed “new efficient cold climate heat pumps” and heat pump water heaters.

If the homeowner also weatherized the house, it would save about $180 a year, and an older, less-efficient house could save $1,300 a year by weatherizing and switching from gas to electric heat and hot water, the report says.

With a typical heat pump costing $4,000 to $7,000, New Jersey previously offered a $2,000 incentive for the purchase of a 5-ton air source heat pump, the report says. But since 2021, the incentives, now handled by utilities, have been cut, with Atlantic City Electric and Jersey Central Power & Light offering rebates of $1,000, while the rebate from PSEG ranges from $390 to $600, according to the report.  

But Rebecca Mazzarella, a spokeswoman for PSEG, said that the company “has incorporated heat pumps for heating, cooling and water heating into our broad effort to help customers save money and energy.”

“Residential heat pumps qualify for rebates up to $750, and customers may be eligible for up to $15,000 in no-interest on-bill repayment to help offset the cost of energy efficient upgrades,” she said, adding that the utility also has  programs offering energy efficiency rebates for commercial customers.

Vermont offers incentives of up to $2,000 for heat pumps, while Connecticut offers between $2,500 and $7,500, according to the New Jersey Conservation Foundation report. New York offers up to $1,600, the report says.

Speakers at the press event dismissed the suggestion, floated by some opponents of electrification, that heat pumps don’t work in cold weather. In response, they cited data that shows annual heat pump sales have surged in New England ― aided by incentives ― from about 70,000 sold in 2016 to close to 180,000 sold in the region in 2020, according to the report.

Maine has set a target of installing 100,000 air source heat pumps by 2025, but had already installed 75,000 by 2021, according to the Efficiency Maine Trust, which is assisting with the installation of heat pumps. New York State is investing $700 million to encourage energy efficiency measures and building electrification, mainly with clean energy heat pump technology. (See NY Pushes Electrification with Heat Pumps.)

New Emissions Rules

Electrification is part of Gov. Phil Murphy’s plan to help New Jersey reach a goal of 100% clean energy by 2050. The state’s 2020 masterplan update sets an GHG emissions reduction goal of 80% by 2050, and on Nov. 10, 2021, Murphy signed an executive order committing the state to a 50% cut in emissions by 2030.

The plan does not suggest a mandate to electrify buildings but calls for the building sector to be “largely decarbonized and electrified” by 2050, with a focus on “new construction and the electrification of oil- and propane-fueled buildings.”

The New Jersey Conservation Foundation report comes as the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is evaluating public response to proposed rules that would prohibit the installation of new commercial and industrial fossil fuel-fired boilers in certain circumstances. If the rules were to go into effect, the DEP would not issue a permit for a new fossil-fuel fired boiler of 1-5 MMBTU unless it is “technically infeasible” to use a non-fossil fuel boiler because of “physical, chemical or engineering principles” or because the interruption of the operation of an existing boiler could “jeopardize public health, life or safety.”

Electrification of the state’s building stock, however, does not have universal support. In January, the state Senate voted 35 to 3 in favor of a bill, S4133, that would prevent state agencies from requiring buildings to use electric heating or hot water boilers as part of the state’s carbon reduction efforts. The bill did not advance in the Assembly before the legislative session ended a few days later.

The bill was similar to other “preemption” bills, which were passed in 20 states last year, with broad and active support from the natural gas industry.  (See NJ Legislators Back Alternatives to Electric Heat.) Proponents of the New Jersey bill argued that it is too soon to back electrification as the only solution when alternative fuels could also help cut emissions. Critics also say that heat pumps are expensive.

The New Jersey Conservation Foundation, however, said it is not looking for a mandate that requires the installation of electric appliances and boilers. The goal is to remove any barriers to the adoption of electrical products, provide incentives and advance a widespread understanding of the benefits of electrical heaters and boilers, said Barbara Blumenthal, research director for the foundation.

The incentives “are designed to help spur the innovation and growth and acceptance of the technology, so that as more people become aware, they see that there’s an opportunity and that opportunity becomes more accessible for everyone.”

Posted on

Michigan Appeals Court Rules for Wind Turbines near Airport

LANSING, Mich. — In a case that could have statewide implications, Michigan’s Court of Appeals ruled that a Tuscola County Airport board improperly denied variances for eight new wind turbines near the airport, the latest decision in a number of court actions involving the wind farm operated by NextEra Energy Resources’ (NYSE:NEE) Pegasus Wind.

Pegasus operates several wind farms in Michigan’s Thumb region, the location of the greatest concentration of wind farms in the state. Some local governments in the multicounty agricultural region have welcomed wind farms, but others have resisted vigorously. Pegasus’ efforts to locate a wind farm near Tuscola County’s airport have engendered more than a dozen legal cases in both state and federal court, said Heidi Stark, a member of the county’s Planning Commission.

In November 2019, the Tuscola Circuit Court reversed the Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Board of Appeals’ (AZBA) decision rejecting variances for 33 Pegasus turbines, which are now operating. A month before that decision, Pegasus submitted variance applications for eight additional turbines within the airport’s zoning area.

In this case, Pegasus Wind v. Tuscola County and Tuscola County Airport Zoning Board of Appeals (Docket No. 355715), the Tuscola County circuit judge ruled the AZBA had authority to deny the eight variances, although the Federal Aviation Administration and Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) had issued “determinations of no hazard.”

But Appeals Judge Michelle Rick, joined by Judge Douglas Shapiro, ruled that the circuit court erred in its ruling and the variances should be granted. Judge Christopher Murray dissented.

‘Practical Difficulty’ vs. ‘Unnecessary Hardship’

The Michigan Airport Zoning Act requires zoning boards of appeals to allow a variance “if a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest, but would do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations.”

The Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Ordinance, in contrast, requires the AZBA to grant a variance if a petitioner establishes any one of those factors, as long as the FAA and MDOT’s Aeronautics Commission has found no hazard.

The court said that the circuit court improperly “conflated” the terms “practical difficulty” and “unnecessary hardship.”
It said many of the zoning cases cited by the circuit court and the parties on appeal did not differentiate between practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because the prior zoning law allowed variances for both reasons.

Tuscola County Airport Variance map (Michigan Court of Appeals) Alt FI.jpgThis “variance map” included in the court’s ruling shows numerous wind turbines (blue rocket shapes) around the Tuscola County Airport (center). | Michigan Court of Appeals

That changed with the 2006 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, which said only a showing of practical difficulty — and not unnecessary hardship — is required to justify the grant of “nonuse” variances, which are concerned with the area, height and setback requirements of structures.

“Because there appears to be confusion between the requirements of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, we use this case as an opportunity to distinguish those requirements in the application of variances,” the court said. “The law is clear that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship are two separate things, and being unique to or inherent in the property is a requirement of hardships, not practical difficulty.

“The question is whether Pegasus has any use for this land under the current zoning — it does not — and whether entering into the agreements with knowledge that the land was subject to the zoning ordinance rendered these hardships self-created — also no,” the court continued. “Accordingly, none of the AZBA’s three stated reasons for concluding that Pegasus failed to establish a practical difficulty is supported by the record, let alone supported by substantial evidence, and the circuit court misapplied the practical difficulty standard.”

Public Interest

The court said the circuit court also erred by affirming the AZBA’s determination that the variances would be contrary to the public interest and protection of the airport’s approach.

The AZBA said the turbines would require a 300-foot increase in minimum descent altitude and that there was no evidence that the energy generated by the project is needed or would be used in the surrounding community.

The court said, however, that there are already numerous turbines “in and around the airport.”

“The record does not contain any evidence supporting a finding that the addition of these eight turbines would or could create risks and situations different from what is already happening as a result of the numerous wind turbines already built.”

While the case deals directly with Tuscola County, many local governments in Michigan have adopted zoning ordinances to effectively block development of wind and solar farms. The AZBA ordered the case published, which means the ruling must be followed in similar cases unless a higher court overturns it.

Pegasus could not be reached for comment. Lawyers for the county could not be reached for comment on whether it will appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear an earlier case involving Pegasus and Tuscola County.

Posted on

Report: Microsoft, PepsiCo Earn Top Marks on Net-zero Progress

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and PepsiCo (NASDAQ:PEP) took the No. 1 and 2 spots in a new ranking of 55 large U.S. companies for their work on net-zero targets and greenhouse gas emission reductions and disclosures.

“The good news is that progress is being made,” said Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel of the nonprofit As You Sow and co-author of the report “Road to Zero Emissions,” released Thursday.

An examination of the top five U.S. corporations in each of 11 major sectors showed 50 companies are disclosing some of their climate emissions, Fugere said during a webinar on the report.

While the number of companies that adopt net-zero targets is increasing, the term “net zero” is not well defined and often does not align with the goal to limit global warming to a 1.5-degree Celsius increase, she said. Companies, she added, don’t always demonstrate whether they are reducing emissions directly or using carbon offsets, and few companies disclose emissions from, or set targets that cover, their value chains.

Value-chain emissions come from sources not directly associated with company operations or the energy that companies purchase or consume. They are difficult to track and can include, for example, companies’ franchise and investment activities or use of the products they sell.

About half of the companies in the report are achieving emissions reductions related to direct operations and energy, but their value-chain emissions represent “the vast majority of total emissions,” according to David Shugar, ESG and climate data analyst at As You Sow and co-author of the report.

Companies analyzed for the report received scores based on GHG emission reductions, disclosures and targets, with reductions showing the “greatest room for improvement,” he said.

Microsoft and Pepsi were among a group of six companies to earn the highest marks on GHG reductions by decreasing emissions at a rate necessary to meet a 1.5-C, net-zero by 2050 goal. There were 43 companies, however, that earned the lowest marks for either not disclosing emissions or not reducing direct and value-chain emissions in line with 1.5 C.

For GHG disclosures, most of the companies report their direct emissions, but Shugar said only 20 report their value-chain emissions. Microsoft, PepsiCo, Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) earned the highest marks for their disclosures, while Tesla (NYSE:TSLA) and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A) earned the lowest marks. Only 11 companies, he said, report the number of offsets they are purchasing to meet their targets.

Looking at the companies’ GHG targets, 36 have set a GHG reduction goal, but some of the goals are not 1.5 C aligned, Shugar said. And Microsoft and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) were the only companies with targets for their value-chain emissions that address a 1.5-C goal, he said.

Energy Companies

Of the five energy companies that made the report, only Southern Co. (NYSE:SO) earned what the report described as a passing mark, ranking No. 8 overall. Southern scored well for disclosing its emissions, but it is among the companies that is not addressing its value-chain emissions.

While Dominion Energy (NYSE:D), Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK) and NextEra Energy (NYSE:NEE) also scored well for their emissions disclosures, none have set carbon-neutral goals for 2050 that cover direct or value-chain emissions, according to the report.

Berkshire Hathaway, parent company of MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp, took the lowest spot on the list, having not met any of the criteria in the report for GHG disclosures, targets and reductions.

To support companies that believe the report does not accurately represent their net-zero programs, Fugere said that As You Sow is creating an online reporting tool so companies can update the nonprofit’s database in real time. Future rankings will reflect the updates submitted to the database, she said.

Posted on

DC Circuit Upholds FERC on Transmission Cost Allocation in PJM

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday denied Linden VFT’s and the Long Island Power Authority’s (LIPA) petitions for review of a settlement that allocated transmission costs in PJM.

But the court did agree with Linden’s argument that FERC “erroneously” assigned costs based on a “flawed interpretation” of the settlement, remanding the commission’s decision for further proceedings.

The dispute was over a settlement the commission approved between PJM and members in May 2018 regarding how the RTO would allocate the costs of transmission projects above 500 kV approved between April 19, 2007 — when FERC determined the RTO’s existing violation-based distribution factor (DFAX) or “postage stamp” method was unjust and unreasonable, requiring a new load-ratio share method — and Feb. 1, 2013, when FERC approved PJM’s new hybrid method, combining both the DFAX and load-ratio methods. (See FERC Rebuffs Challenges to PJM Tx Cost Allocation.)

FERC approved the settlement over the objection of Linden and LIPA, both of which export electricity from PJM to New York; they argued they would pay about $30 million more for the “vintage projects” approved between 2007 and 2013 than under a pure DFAX method.

After the commission denied rehearing of the settlement orders, Linden and LIPA petitioned for judicial review.

“The question is difficult because high-voltage projects afford two different kinds of benefits — local benefits that accrue primarily to utilities close to the project at issue, and regional benefits that accrue throughout the grid,” the court said in its ruling. “The 7th Circuit has twice set aside cost allocations that ignored the local benefits, and we have set aside cost allocations that ignored the regional benefits.”

Arguments

Linden and LIPA contended that FERC’s approval of the settlement, and the allocations it implemented, were arbitrary, but the court disagreed, saying that the commission can approve an agreement when the “overall result of the settlement is just and reasonable,” even if “individual aspects” of it “may be problematic.”

“FERC adequately justified its approval of each formula,” the court said. “Start with the going-forward formula, which allocates costs through a mix of the postage-stamp and flow-based methods. FERC approved the formula based on reasoning in its 2013 compliance order, which had approved the same formula for future high-voltage transmission projects. Doing so was not arbitrary.”

Linden and LIPA also contended that the settlement violated a requirement of a cost-benefit analysis to quantify the benefits of a project, citing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ rejection of the postage-stamp methodology in 2014. But the D.C. Circuit said that ruling was narrow, in that it found FERC weighed regional benefits over local benefits. “‘Nothing in those decisions casts doubt on’ FERC’s view that high-voltage projects have substantial regionwide benefits,” it said, quoting itself from a previous ruling.

The court also said FERC “reasonably concluded” in its orders that Linden or LIPA would not have found a more favorable decision on the settlements by going through litigation in the courts.

“The challengers do their best to obscure this point, but what they seek is application of a pure postage-stamp method — or at least a hybrid formula with a more heavily weighted postage-stamp component,” the court said. “The 7th Circuit has twice set aside a pure postage-stamp formula for the vintage projects. We have little doubt that, if faced once again with a pure or almost pure postage-stamp formula, it would call strike three.”

TEC Adjustments

The 2018 settlement made a series of adjustments for the “vintage project” costs incurred before 2016, which PJM previously had allocated under the DFAX method. FERC said the adjustments were made to bring the allocations in line with “what would have been credited or paid” if PJM had adopted the going-forward formula from the start.

The formula imposed monthly transmission enhancement charge (TEC) adjustments beginning in January 2016 and continuing through December 2025.

Linden argued that it did not need to make any of the payments created in the formula because it surrendered its firm transmission withdrawal rights on Jan. 1, 2018, about five months before FERC approved the settlement. PJM agreed that Linden did not need to pay TEC adjustments for 2018 to 2025, but they disagreed over TEC adjustments for 2016 and 2017.

Regarding TEC adjustments, the PJM tariff states, “If all responsible customers in a zone or merchant transmission facility are no longer subject to transmission enhancement charges under the PJM tariff during the period in which transmission enhancement charge adjustments are collected, then, during the portion of that period that such responsible customers are not subject to transmission enhancement charges, the payments from or credits to such responsible customers shall cease.”

Linden is the only responsible customer in its merchant facility, and it argued that the “period in which [TEC] adjustments are collected” began when FERC approved the settlement, because PJM “did not and could not collect any payments before then.”

FERC said that TEC adjustments began to accrue and were “collected” as soon as the settlement became effective in January 2016.

“The plain meaning of ‘collected’ unambiguously supports Linden,” the court ruled. “FERC has not identified a single example, in a dictionary or otherwise, where ‘collect’ means to accrue liability. Nor have we found any. This strongly suggests that ‘collect’ simply cannot bear that meaning.”

Posted on

ERCOT, Brazos Agree to Mediation in Dispute

ERCOT and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative agreed last week to enter mediation over the amount of money the bankrupt cooperative owes the Texas grid operator’s market.

The agreement paused a two-week proceeding in Houston before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas and followed testimony Thursday by Kenan Ögelman, ERCOT’s vice president of commercial operations.

Ögelman explained to the presiding judge that ERCOT is a nonprofit, “invoice-in, payment-out” manager of the state’s electric market. Defaults on any power purchases would be uplifted to its participants, he said.

“How does ERCOT pay? They’re a clearinghouse. What assets do they have?” Chuck Gibbs, an attorney representing Brazos’ largest member, said last month during an Infocast ERCOT Market Summit. (See ERCOT’s Legal Issues Continue to Mount.)

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones suggested the two sides reach an agreement over their differences “to make this all work. ERCOT … [is] a lifeblood for everybody that lives in this state.”

ERCOT and Brazos will mediate their dispute before Judge Marvin Isgur, the court’s other presiding judge. The bankruptcy proceeding is expected to resume in April.

At issue is $1.9 billion in market charges ERCOT assigned to Brazos during last February’s winter storm, when regulators ordered prices be kept at $9,000/MWh over four days. The cooperative is not disputing how much energy it bought to compensate for its own plants that did not run, but it argues it should owe about $800 million (21-03863).

Posted on

MISO Winter Fuel Security Surveys Now Permanent

With winter largely behind it, MISO staff last week told stakeholders that winter fuel security surveys will become an annual fixture.  

The RTO rolled out the weekly surveys to its fossil fuel generation fleet’s owners in early December, despite some members saying it was a burdensome task. At the time, MISO said it was receiving concerning reports about possible fuel scarcities ahead of the winter. The mandatory surveys ended last month.  (See MISO Sounds Alarm on Potential Winter Fuel Scarcity.)

During a Reliability Subcommittee meeting Thursday, staff’s J.T. Smith said the grid operator will refine the format to make sure it’s efficient and easier to use by next winter.  

“We know that this was a very ad-hoc, quick move,” Smith said of last year’s abrupt rollout. He said staff will examine whether the RTO is “asking the right questions or not.”

He admitted that not all generation owners responded to the survey after it was introduced. MISO has said some operators were “hit and miss” in filling out the weekly surveys.

“By the time we started to get decent information, it wasn’t as relevant anymore,” Smith said.

MISO said the survey results showed “healthy” fuel stockpiles this winter. It said the mild winter weather also contributed to the positive fuel management. Some operators reported slower train deliveries because of supply chain issues, labor shortages and harsh weather.

The RTO also delivered a refresher on how it positions itself for extreme weather. (See NERC Cold Weather Project Moves Forward.)

MISO’s Trevor Hines said each extreme weather event is different and the RTO prepares differently across heatwaves, arctic blasts, hurricanes or tornadoes.

He said the bulk of preparations rely on members’ most up-to-date offer data available. “We’re only as good as the information provided to us,” Hines said.

He said staff considers an extreme weather event’s unique risk before committing generation in advance. Hines said control room operators will monitor storm paths to anticipate what resources could become unavailable and will order early start times if it becomes too cold for generators to start up normally. MISO often dispatches additional units to account for forced outage risk, he said.

MISO is considering using extreme weather historical data to influence its decision-making, Hines said. He said going forward, staff might use past load data and generation- and transmission-failure data to predict response during unfolding events.

The RTO will also remove the “other” option when generation owners input data into the outage scheduler.

Senior engineer David Schoon said MISO suspects the generic option is overused as a cause code in the outage tickets that market participants submit for outages. In its place, staff will add several new outage explanation selections.

Staff said it’s important they understand why generation outages are occurring. MISO said it hasn’t meaningfully updated its outage-cause codes since 2014.

Some stakeholders said it isn’t immediately clear what causes generation to trip. They added that MISO’s outage ticket system is rigid and doesn’t allow members to retroactively modify their entries.

Staff said they would investigate why members can’t seem to edit outage notices.

Posted on

Nonprofits: NorthWestern’s Net-zero Goal Not Enough

Dozens of Montana organizations are demanding that NorthWestern Energy decarbonize by 2035, years ahead of its midcentury target for net-zero emissions.

More than 30 groups, including environmental nonprofits, public consumer advocates, health care professionals, consultants and a Montana State University professor, sent a letter Thursday to NorthWestern Board Chair Dana Dykhouse. The organizations demanded the utility decarbonize its fleet no later than 2035, saying the plan should be based on science and contain benchmarks.

The letter also said NorthWestern, which serves 753,600 customers across Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska in SPP and MISO, should model multiple scenarios that “eliminate the utility’s dependence on fossil fuels.”

“We urge you, as a fiduciary of NorthWestern Energy, to exercise your responsibility in a manner that guarantees the company’s long-term financial well-being,” the letter urged Dykhouse. “That can only be accomplished by requiring the company to adopt a meaningful climate strategy that will make it more resilient and prepared for the clean energy future.”

The same day, NorthWestern set a goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Montana’s largest utility called it an “achievable target” in a press release.

“NorthWestern Energy begins this transition to an even cleaner energy future building on the considerable progress we have already made,” Energy CEO Brian Bird said. “We have the tremendous honor to be the stewards of this critical energy infrastructure that delivers safe and reliable energy to our region. Now is the time to raise the bar and start the transition to net zero by 2050.”

Northwestern said that last year, 56% of its electricity was generated from carbon-free resources, better than the electricity industry’s 40% average. It pointed out that its 10 hydroelectric facilities supplied 33% of the utility’s load.

Montana Environmental Information Center Co-Director Anne Hedges, one of the letter’s signatories, blasted the 2050 goal as a “PR move to improve lackluster” environment, social and governance perception. She said the target allows NorthWestern to raise emissions through 2035 by building more fossil fuel generation and pipelines.

“There are no benchmarks for reaching its 2050 goal in the electricity section of its business. Until we see NorthWestern actually plan for a clean energy future with benchmarks and actions that decrease its reliance on fossil fuels instead of increasing its reliance, it’s hard to take its proposal seriously,” Hedges said in an email to RTO Insider. “Anything short of meaningful planning and implementation is just more of the same from this laggard utility.”

She said NorthWestern’s largest financial investors have “raised concerns about companies that fail to plan for a lower carbon future” and added that financial analyst Moody’s has recently given the utility poor environmental and social scores. She said NorthWestern’s 2050 net-zero goal is only a “small step” and about decade behind other utilities in the region.

“Increased fossil fuel dependency means increased costs for customers, more expensive stranded assets and a failure to decarbonize according to the latest scientific research,” Hedges said.

NorthWestern did not respond to a request for comment.