Search
`
November 7, 2024

Stakeholders Approve ISO-NE Order 2222 Compliance Plan

ISO-NE’s proposed set of market rules to implement FERC Order 2222 carried the day Wednesday as stakeholders approved its compliance filing and rejected several amendments opposed by the RTO.

The NEPOOL Markets Committee recommended that the Participants Committee approve the filing, which must be submitted by Feb. 2, and rejected six amendments proposed by Advanced Energy Economy (RM18-9).

Order 2222 is intended to allow distributed energy resource aggregations to provide all wholesale services that they are technically capable of providing, and the RTO has been working on its compliance filing for the past year. (See “AEE Offers Amendments for Order 2222 Compliance Proposal,” NEPOOL Markets Committee Briefs: Oct. 13-14, 2021.)

AEE proposed a series of individual amendments that are not part of an overall package, including allowing sub-metered load to participate as demand response and sub-metering by third parties. A proposed amendment to incorporate a periodic review requirement was withdrawn by AEE following consultations with the RTO.

Several stakeholders abstaining on the amendment votes said they needed more time to consider the tariff changes and would look forward to having another chance to vote on at least some of them at the Jan. 6 Participants Committee meeting.

The NEPOOL Transmission Committee is scheduled to vote on the Order 2222 proposals Dec. 13, as the Reliability Committee is the following day.

Filing Specifics

The compliance filing passed the MC with 71.11% in favor, with16.7% of the Generation sector in favor, with one abstention; 16.7% of the Transmission sector in favor; 14.31% of Suppliers in favor, with 2.39% opposed and five abstentions; 16.7% of Publicly Owned Entities in favor; 6.7% of Alternative Resources in favor, with 9.8% opposed and two abstentions; and 16.7% of End Users opposed, with one abstention.

The RTO said that additional tariff changes associated with the energy and ancillary services markets were designed to address stakeholder feedback. For example, one change would clarify that a DER aggregation with non-storage resources may participate using the continuous storage facility or binary storage facility model.

UMass-Solar-Canopies-(UMass)-Alt-FI.jpgUMass Amherst in 2021 is installing 4 MW of solar canopies with Tesla battery storage to produce electricity. | UMass

Other changes would clarify DER size requirements; include procedural details in the registration coordination process; further clarify responsibilities of the host utility (or its agent) and DER aggregators; and clarify the dispute resolution process between DER owners and aggregators.

Another change would require a DER aggregation’s designated entity or demand designated entity to comply with both ISO-NE’s and the host utility’s procedures and requirements to the extent applicable.

The proposed effective date for the changes to the Forward Capacity Market would be during the fourth quarter of 2022 to allow the RTO to implement changes in time for the Forward Capacity Auction 18 qualification process, which starts in the spring of 2023.

Assuming that the commission accepts the compliance filing by Q4 2022, distributed capacity resources will be able to participate in FCA 18, which will be conducted in February 2024 for the capacity commitment period beginning June 1, 2027.

The proposed effective date for the E&AS markets changes would be in the fourth quarter of 2026 to allow resources to be commercial and integrated before the CCP beginning June 1, 2027.

Amendment Details

The MC voted against AEE’s proposed amendment to expand baseline calculation optionality for DR resources and aggregations by using an add-back baseline methodology under which such resources would receive no positive settlement payments for either the day-ahead or real-time energy market. The amendment received only 26.78% in support.

AEE characterized the proposed changes as designed to further ensure a facility would be unable to receive payments if they take no action to reduce their consumption from the grid.

The MC also voted against (with only 32.98% in favor) a proposed amendment to expand baseline calculation optionality for DR resources and aggregations by allowing generation to count as load reduction.

The RTO noted in its memo on the amendments that its proposed implementation of Order 745, which stipulated that DR providers be compensated at the same rates as generators, was opposed by a coalition of DR providers and an industrial energy consumer group.

“These parties wanted to be able to measure demand response performance by directly metering behind-the-meter generation, which is what AEE’s proposed revision would allow. The commission considered the evidence presented and found [ISO-NE’s] approach to be the preferred one,” the RTO said.

The MC also voted against proposed amendments to:

  • allow sub-metered load to participate as DR (36.02% in favor);
  • allow DERs associated with an aggregation to use a third-party meter reader to meet its metering and meter data service requirements (40.7% in favor);
  • remove barriers for DERs that can provide ancillary services by removing the requirement to clear in the energy market if providing spinning reserves (35.9% in favor); and
  • remove barriers for DERs that can provide ancillary services by allowing sub-metering for resources providing regulation (32.56% in favor).

WECC Taking ‘Greenfield’ Approach to SOTI Improvements

In light of the evolving challenges facing the Western Interconnection, WECC plans to continue improving its annual State of the Interconnection (SOTI) report, staff said Tuesday.

Speaking to WECC’s Member Advisory Committee (MAC), Vic Howell, the regional entity’s director of reliability risk management, said the 2020 SOTI “marked a pretty significant change” in how WECC organizes the annual report, with a summary document added to the usual online portal. While similar “monumental improvements” were not possible for this year’s report because of “other priorities,” he said the RE hopes to “reimagine” the SOTI — both its final form and the process of creation — for next year’s version.

“We’re not real sure what that’s going to look like — we’re trying to get through this year for now. But we’re really going to take some time to think about what the SOTI could be [and] what it should be,” Howell said. “And we’re going to be talking to a lot of people and really thinking greenfield about this. … We’re going to be thinking big and bold.”

EEAs Rise while Misoperations Decline 

The 2021 SOTI — released in August — noted a steady rise in energy emergency alerts (EEAs) over the past four years, from 11 in 2017 to 46 in 2020. Thirteen of the EEAs experienced last year were Level 3, a decline from the previous year’s 19 but still accounting for 70% of the entire ERO Enterprise’s EEA Level 3 events for the second straight year.

Misoperations-rate-in-the-Western-Interconnection-(WECC)-Content.jpgMisoperations rate in the Western Interconnection by quarter | WECC

Authors of the report indicated that likely future increases in the incidence of extreme weather events like the August 2020 heat wave, during which 42% of all EEAs and 54% of Level 3 events occurred, means Western utilities need to prepare for more emergencies. The “growing frequency and intensity of wildfires across the West” is another major reliability risk.

While the level of EEAs has grown over the past four years, the protection system misoperation rate has fallen from over 7% in 2016 to below 4% in 2020. The SITO attributes the decline in misoperations to WECC’s “strong partnership with industry protection system experts,” through which it “vets and maintains” misoperations data to improve utilities’ performance.  

Current-capacity-by-fuel-type-(WECC)-Content.jpgThe Western Interconnection’s current capacity by fuel type in MW | WECC

This year’s SITO also warns about the interconnection’s growing reliance on variable energy resources such as wind and solar power, which together comprise more than 18% of the West’s current capacity, more than coal at 11%. In future years, the report says, both resources will exceed coal on an individual basis because of “drivers like clean energy policy, economics and customer choice.”

As generating capacity increasingly shifts to weather-dependent resources, grid planning must become more adaptable, particularly when it comes to resource adequacy. Small-scale resources like batteries and rooftop solar panels, which are harder for utilities to monitor, will add to these planning challenges.

2021 Report Addresses Longer Time Frame

This year’s report did produce one significant change with the summary document including data from early 2021, though the online portal only covers the 2020 calendar year.

Howell said the scope of the summary document was expanded because “the timing of the release of the report” created an opportunity to include events from this year such as July’s wildfires, which led to the derating of the Pacific DC Intertie and the near shutdown of the California-Oregon Intertie. (See Wildfires Raise Concerns for Western Tx Lines.) However, the inclusion of these more recent events is meant to enhance the SOTI’s goal of identifying ongoing trends in the interconnection, rather than expand its focus into the following year.

California Energy Commission Approves $500M for EV Charger Incentive Programs

The California Energy Commission on Wednesday approved allocating up to $500 million in grant funding for electric vehicle charging incentive programs.

Up to $250 million in funding will go to CALSTART, a nonprofit group focused on clean transportation technologies; up to another $250 million will be awarded to the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), a nonprofit that provides energy program administration and consulting services.

The two groups will design, implement and manage incentive programs for EV charging infrastructure. The groups will develop the programs after gathering stakeholder and community input and holding public workshops.

Although details of the incentive programs have not yet been worked out, the programs are expected to include a focus on disadvantaged and low-income communities as well as multi-family housing.

CEC voted 5-0 on Wednesday to approve $1 million each to CALSTART and CSE to cover program startup costs. The commission also gave its executive director authority to allocate additional funds, up to a total of $250 million to each group, to implement the incentive programs.

The incentive programs are expected to add thousands of EV chargers in California, helping the state meet its goal of 250,000 public and shared chargers by 2025. A recent report estimated the state will need 1.2 million chargers for light-duty vehicles by 2030.

The state now has an estimated 195,000 EV chargers planned or already in place, said Phil Cazel of the CEC’s Fuels and Transportation Division.

The funding is coming, in part, from the CEC’s Clean Transportation Program, which got a boost this year when the state legislature approved a record $2.7 billion for zero-emission vehicle programs in FY 2021/22. (See Calif. Earmarks $3.9B for ZEVs Through 2024.)

“We are going to be watching this really, really closely,” CEC Chairman David Hochschild said. “The stakes are extremely high for the state, for our climate goals. We want this money to be well deployed, well administered and to get out quickly.”

In a separate agenda item, CALSTART also was awarded $226 million to run incentive programs for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure. The funds are in addition to a $50 million award to CALSTART in March. (See Calif. Energy Commission OKs $50M for Truck Charging.)

In total, the CEC approved $730 million in grants for transportation electrification projects, the largest amount of grant funding voted on in a single commission meeting, Hochschild said.

“This is really an important milestone,” he said.

Other groups awarded grant funding include Rail Propulsion Systems LLC, which will receive $270,000 for a demonstration project showing that a battery-electric locomotive can be charged wirelessly. The system will allow the locomotive to recharge along an eight-foot stretch of track.

Commissioner Patty Monahan said she envisioned the system as “opportunity charging,” where the locomotive could get a little “extra juice” at the wireless location rather than fully recharging.

“There’s not yet a full-on business case for this, but we’re making these exploratory investments because the future of charging is changing so fast,” Monahan said.

Another grant award went to the Center for Transportation and the Environment Inc., which will receive $3 million to design, build, test and demonstrate two zero-emission vehicles to be used in emergency disaster relief. The hydrogen fuel-cell backup generation vehicles, also known as H2BUG, will be designed to travel 90 miles each direction and provide at least 35 kW of continuous power for 48 hours or longer.

The vehicles will be designed similarly to incident command vehicles. They will support charging of cell phones and other devices, lighting, refrigerators and communication systems.

Virginia Adopts Advanced Clean Cars Regulations for 2025 Models

Virginia air regulators last week unanimously approved a measure to adopt standards that will reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions and set zero-emission vehicle sales requirements for car manufacturers.

The State Air Pollution Control Board during its regular meeting on Dec. 2 adopted low-emission vehicle (LEV) and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards established by California’s Advanced Clean Cars regulation.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed a bill (HB 1965) in March that directed the board to adopt the regulations.

“Adoption of the Advanced Clean Cars regulation is a historic step in Virginia’s efforts to address air pollution and reduce harmful emissions associated with our transportation network,” said Michael Dowd, director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Air’s Renewable Energy Division.

Under the LEV standard, manufacturers doing business in Virginia must meet California’s exhaust emission standards starting with model year 2025 for passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles. The ZEV standard, which is based on a system of compliance credits, requires manufacturers to achieve a certain number of ZEV sales for the same vehicle categories and model years as the LEV standard.

Manufacturers must produce ZEVs and plug-in hybrids that will receive credits based on driving range. Included in the authorizing legislation is a requirement that the board allow manufacturers to establish a Virginia-specific account for ZEV credits that can be traded or sold. The Virginia-specific credits also may be used to meet up to 18% of the manufacturer’s program requirements in any given year.

A proposal by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would allow manufacturers to transfer their ZEV credits among states as part of the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation under development. Interstate credit transfers would be allowed for model years 2026-2030. (See CARB Plan Would Allow Interstate Transfer of ZEV Credits.)

Speaking at the Dec. 2 meeting, Walton Shepherd, Virginia policy director with National Resources Defense Council, said the board’s vote would be “one of the most beneficial clean air actions” it has ever taken.

The benefits would not end with clean air, he said, adding that transportation fueling dollars will stay in state when consumers charge their EVs with Virginia-produced electricity.

“Around 2025 is when your average electric vehicle will cost the same as an internal combustion car,” he said. “In 2025 and beyond … it would literally be irrational to buy a gas-powered car because you will lose money every time you fuel your car with gas.”

Virginia joins 15 other states that have already adopted the Advanced Clean Cars regulation, according to CARB. The standards in Virginia will go into effect in January 2024.

MISO Sounds Alarm on Potential Winter Fuel Scarcity

ORLANDO, Fla. — MISO is raising the alarm over scarce fuel and increased forced outages should a severe arctic blast descend on the footprint.

Speaking Tuesday before the Markets Committee of the MISO Board of Directors, Renuka Chatterjee, executive director of system operations, said the grid operator expects anywhere from 36 to 50 GW in generation outages under an extreme winter scenario. MISO expects a 101-GW system peak this January and 108 GW in available capacity to meet the demand. (See MISO Warns of January Emergency Procedures.)

“Risk has increased beyond frozen coal piles this winter,” Chatterjee said, noting that coal suppliers have downsized their inventory. She also said gas storage is at relatively low levels nationwide.

Staff said up to 20 GW in natural gas generation is at risk because of non-firm transport arrangements, and another 11 GW of coal generation could become unavailable because generation owners haven’t fully contracted their winter supply. Natural gas prices in MISO have essentially doubled since late 2020, while coal costs have risen about 15%.

Chatterjee also said available wind generation could swing from 4 GW to 15 GW this winter.

“In light of the fuel risks this winter, MISO is asking members to help provide more visibility into their situation,” Chatterjee said.

The RTO has asked members with coal or gas availability concerns to reach out to both the grid operator and its Independent Market Monitor. It is also asking affected members to complete a weekly coal or fuel oil generator survey so staff can “assess and manage risk.”

“I urge continued vigilance on this. The reports on fuel security are concerning,” MISO Director Nancy Lange said.

MISO Executive Director of Market Operations Shawn McFarlane said in November that “arctic weather of some length” would carry system reliability risks.

Staff has concluded they will be forced to rely on non-firm imports from its neighbors to avoid load shed should punishing winter weather materialize.

“If PJM has a bad day the same day we’re having a bad day, the country will have a bad day,” MISO President Clair Moeller explained to board members. He said that under the normal nature of cold fronts, staff can rely on PJM imports because both systems don’t experience weather hardships simultaneously.

The Monitor’s David Patton said as MISO moves into wintertime, coal generation serves as an important backstop when gas pipelines fail. He said coal supply chain risks are concerning. He also predicted the RTO won’t see $2/MMBtu natural gas prices for quite some time.

“I was happy to see MISO identified this as a new risk because that is certainly a risk,” Patton said.

But Patton again lambasted “near-zero” per megawatt-day capacity prices in the 2021-22 planning year. (See MISO Capacity Auction Values South Capacity at a Penny.)

“If reliability is in fact an imperative, this market is not helping us,” he told board members.

Chatterjee said it’s becoming increasingly difficult to operate the system with intermittent resources growing share of the fuel mix while the system is beleaguered with extreme weather events.

MISO set a new all-time wind output record of 22 GW on Nov. 12. That accounted for 29% of the RTO’s demand.

Patton also said MISO’s congestion costs in 2021 are approaching $2 billion, an unprecedented amount. Chatterjee said that can be chalked up to February’s winter storm and this year’s higher natural gas prices.

SPP Board Reviews 2021 Performance Metrics

SPP’s Board of Directors gathered virtually Monday to review performance metrics and stakeholder feedback for 2021 in what they hope will be their last remote meeting after almost two years of virtual gatherings.

“Clearly, everyone’s ready for in-person meetings,” CEO Barbara Sugg said.

She said not every board member filled out their surveys this year, a contrast to the normal 100% response rate. Including the Members Committee (MC), which advises the board, the rate was down from 81% to 75%.

“[Board Chair] Larry [Altenbaumer] and I will have to figure out a way to get people excited about filling this out next year,” she said.

The average board and members’ scores increased in 13 of 19 categories, dropping in only five. The average rate for meeting effectiveness fell from 4.50 to 4.43 (on a five-point scale) from 2020.

COO Lanny Nickell said SPP’s annual organizational effectiveness survey of its 21 stakeholder groups saw its lowest scores for member preparation and engagement during meetings. Members rated the groups’ overall effectiveness at 4.40 on a five-point scale, down slightly from 4.42 in 2020.

Larry-Altenbaumer-Barbara-Sugg-(SPP)-Content.jpgBoard Chair Larry Altenbaumer and CEO Barbara Sugg adjourn the SPP board’s final meeting of the year. | SPP

 

The response rate to the RTO’s annual stakeholder satisfaction survey was up slightly from 2020 to 13.8%, but still down from the high-water mark of 21.2% set in 2017. The survey was distributed to 1,672 organizational group members, market participants and other individuals who interacted with SPP during the previous 12 months through meetings, training, customer relations interactions or other exchanges.

Respondents indicated a slightly lower overall satisfaction with SPP’s service in 2021, with scores falling from 3.87 in 2020 to 3.61, similar to ratings in 2018 and 2019. The average scores evaluating staff’s performance in three specific areas also declined by an average of 6.3% year-over-year, falling in line with 2018 and 2019.

David Osburn, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority’s general manager, suggested stakeholders might be experiencing fatigue from the number of high-level initiatives SPP has taken on during the last two years.

“The last two years have been incredibly fatiguing, and not just because we’re dealing with this remote world,” Sugg said. “We’ve just had some really big things that have taken so much time. I hope that doesn’t lead to us providing less quality service … we have to start delivering on all those things we’ve decided to take on.”

“I think the organization, the staff, board and stakeholders did just a fantastic job navigating through these past two years,” Altenbaumer said. “I know we’re all anxious to get into 2022, when the world will start moving in something that feels more normal.”

SPP plans to resume its in-person meetings in January after two years of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The board, MC and Regional State Committee will meet Jan. 24-25 in Little Rock, Ark., while the Markets and Operations Policy Committee and Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) will meet Jan. 10-12 in Oklahoma City.

New Groups, Stakeholder Reps OK’d

The board also unanimously approved two new stakeholder groups, chairpersons for several working groups and advisory groups, and two representatives for empty seats on the SPC, all brought forward by the Corporate Governance Committee.

The Emergency Communications User Forum’s creation was one of several recommendations made by SPP’s comprehensive report on February’s winter storm. The group will be responsible for providing feedback to identify, improve and prioritize SPP stakeholders’ energy emergency communications needs.

SPP staff proposed forming the Future Grid Strategy Advisory Group to “proactively address, drive and shape” some of the grid’s anticipated changes and to prepare for other changes.

Named as stakeholder group chairs were:

  • Allen Klassen, Evergy, Operating Reliability Working Group;
  • Robert Pick, Nebraska Public Power District, Regional Tariff Working Group;
  • Thomas Maldonado, Xcel Energy, Reliability Compliance Advisory Group;
  • Jim Jacoby, American Electric Power, Seams Advisory Group;
  • Phil Clark, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Security Advisory Group;
  • Natasha Henderson, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Supply Adequacy Working Group; and
  • Derek Brown, Evergy, Transmission Working Group.

Usha Turner, Oklahoma Gas & Electric, and Steve Sanders, Western Area Power Administration, will join the SPC. Turner’s term ends in December 2023 and Sanders’ in December 2024.

MISO Raises ORDC’s Lowest Level to $1,100/MWh

FERC on Monday approved MISO’s request to raise its four-step operating reserve demand curve’s (ORDC) lowest level from $200/MWh to $1,100/MWh, agreeing with the RTO that the final step is probably priced too low to entice generating resources (ER21-2797).

MISO’s ORDC is based on a $3,500/MWh value of lost load (VoLL) and begins at $3,300/MWh. It drops to $2,100/MWh for much of the curve when the RTO clears 8% of its requirement level. At 89%, the level falls to $1,100/MWh, remaining there until 96% or more of the requirement is cleared and the curve flattens at $200/MWh.

The fourth step will be raised to equal $1,100/MWh, better reflecting the cost of emergency actions necessary to meet reserve shortages.

In its filing, the RTO said the $200/MWh step undervalued reserve shortages and led to “inefficiently low prices that did not send signals to resources that may be expected to respond in future shortage conditions.”

FERC agreed that the $200/MWh price might not send appropriate signals to resources “and could lead to procurement of reserves below system need.”

MISO staffers have said the $200/MWh value was set before the grid operator had established emergency pricing. They have long said the starting point should be raised to reflect the value of energy in scarcity conditions.

The change should help raise the grid operator’s emergency prices, which MISO’s Independent Market Monitor has long criticized as too low. The IMM has called for an operating reserve demand curve that eradicates the step-based pricing in favor of gently sloped descent from a much higher starting point of about $10,000/MWh.

MISO has said it doesn’t plan to address raising its VoLL value until 2023 or later.

Hawaii PUC Approves Kauai Pumped Storage Project

Hawaii’s Public Utilities Commission last week approved construction of the West Kauai Energy Project (WKEP), a pumped storage hydropower (PSH) project designed to provide the island with 110 GWh in annual output.

Located on the west side of Kauai near the town of Waimea, WKEP will be constructed and operated by AES and owned by the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC).

WKEP is a multifaceted project that will generate electricity via hydropower, store and release electricity using a solar PV/battery-electric storage system (BESS) and provide irrigation to support nearby agriculture.

The PSH will utilize two powerhouses with the PV/BESS. Water will flow from diverted rivers down the mountain into the Puu Lua Reservoir. From there, some water will be diverted to irrigation while the rest will flow down to the Puu Opae Reservoir and its powerhouse, generating 4 MW or an estimated 13 GWh annually. The water will then flow down to the Mana Reservoir and its powerhouse, generating 20 MW or an estimated 13 GWh annually.

The PV/BESS system near the Mana Reservoir will generate 35 MW, some of which will go directly to Kauai’s energy grid, and the rest will go to pumping the water from the Mana Reservoir back up to the Puu Opae Reservoir in a continuous loop.

KIUC estimates that from the energy produced from PV, 48% will be used to power the Mana Pumphouse, 31% will go directly to Kauai’s energy grid and 21% will be sent to the BESS.

The PUC order (38095) approving the project notes that the BESS “will be DC-coupled to the PV array and thus will be able to follow the variability of the PV array’s energy production caused by passing cloud cover to ensure constant PV power for pumping while also harvesting otherwise clipped/lost energy.”

KIUC says the project will provide reliability through energy storage, noting the PSH portion of WKEP will offer “firm, dispatchable renewable energy, averaging 26 GWh annually, that can be delivered to the grid mainly during the evening peak, nighttime and morning peak hours but also during periods of cloudy/rainy weather, thereby displacing fossil fuel energy.”

The utility expects the project to reduce fossil fuel use by 8.5 million gallons annually, which would allow the project to contribute 22.72% to KIUC’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS). In addition, KIUC estimates that WKEP will offset approximately 2.5 million GHGs over the project’s lifecycle.

KIUC estimates that WKEP will save its customers “between $157 million and $172 million” over 25 years.

The project will also rehabilitate the Puu Lua Reservoir for community recreation. KIUC also notes that WKEP “should assist in mitigating future flooding risks. … The repairs to the Puu Lua Reservoir, Puu Opae Reservoir and Mana Reservoir will bring the reservoirs into compliance with Hawaii State Dam Safety Standards, which [will] provide some protection from flooding for downstream lands and greatly decrease the risk of a dam breach.”

Kauai residents and environmental groups previously raised concerns about WKEP related to land use for solar panels, the location of piping for the hydro portion of the project and the potential for discharge of fresh water into nearby coral reefs. (See Kauai Solar + Pumped Hydro Project Raises Concerns.)

Residents asked that the PUC not approve the project until it undergoes a Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) review, but the commission accepted KIUC’s assurances that it would provide quarterly updates regarding the review and reserved the right to take “appropriate” action in response.

AES can begin construction once a HEPA review has been completed and it has acquired all necessary permits for construction and operation.

Decarbonizing America’s Ports Could be 1st Step for Hydrogen Adoption

The anticipated revolution in hydrogen-based fuels advocated by the Biden administration and endorsed by the U.N. Convention on Climate Change has also captured the imaginations of green visionaries eager to help the world dodge climate change by ending dependence on fossil fuels.

One such organization is the California-based Green Hydrogen Coalition, an educational nonprofit founded in 2019 with the mission to build “top-down momentum for scalable green hydrogen projects.”

Janice Lin, the Berkeley-based founder and president of GHC, sees the nation’s seaports as an ideal starting place for a hydrogen fuel revolution to begin “because ports are epicenters of poor air quality.”

In a two-day webinar hosted Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, Lin moderated multiple panels of experts and advocates to examine that proposition while also examining strategies to leverage green hydrogen, made with electrolysis using renewable power. Nearly all of the hydrogen used today is stripped from natural gas, which also produces carbon dioxide and, because of that, is known as gray hydrogen.

Day 1 of the conference included an overview of the Biden administration’s hydrogen goals and the $9.5 billion in funding authorized to accelerate the development of clean hydrogen in the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that the president signed into law Nov. 15.

Viewers also heard the experience of one marine terminal company servicing the congested Port of Los Angeles: Fenix Marine Services, which moves about 20% of the port’s cargo and consumes about 175,000 gallons of diesel fuel every month.

Webinar participants and viewers also got a brief analysis of the global hydrogen market from a BloombergNEF analyst who predicted green hydrogen would become a dominate fuel in most major markets by the end of the decade.

Targets

For the federal perspective, U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk made it clear that hydrogen is a cornerstone of the administration’s energy policy, whether green, gray or blue — the last of which is when the carbon dioxide produced when making hydrogen from methane is captured and sequestered or used in some other industrial process.

“Hopefully everyone has now seen and internalized this administration’s incredibly ambitious goals on climate: the 2030 goal of 50 to 52% … greenhouse gas emission reductions; 2035, 100% clean electricity; and 2050, full net-zero for our economy,” Turk said.

Reaching those targets will require “a range of technologies, not only for electricity but for transportation; for buildings; for industry; across everything that uses energy in our society,” he said.

“One of those technologies that we’re putting a lot of emphasis on, certainly from the Department of Energy perspective, is hydrogen. It’s versatile; it can be created in a number of different ways. It can be used in a number of different ways, including for the harder-to-decarbonize sectors, whether that’s heavy-duty freight, whether that’s a variety of industrial uses. But there’s some challenges on hydrogen, especially the cost of green hydrogen,” he said.

The administration’s ultimate goal for hydrogen is to create an industry with the ability to produce it carbon-free at $1/kg by the end of the decade, he said.

And that fits well with GHC’s goals to convince terminal operators in the ports of L.A. and Long Beach to shift away from diesel-powered trucks and other equipment as soon as possible and move to electric equipment, powered either by hydrogen fuel cells and batteries or plugged into the local distribution gird.

Advocacy group C40 Cities has that same goal but on an international basis.

“The idea behind our ports program is that by engaging ports and shipping industry, city governments can align their climate goals and strategies, and not just share knowledge but act collectively as a coalition,” said Alisa Kreynes, green ports program manager for the group’s Climate Solutions & Networks division.

“We see point cities as key global players and catalysts for decarbonizing our shipping and supply chains. We also see ports and cities having a unique role in climate action because of the very nature of how ports connect cities across the world through trade and innovation,” she said.

C40 in April began developing common emission standards for ports and working with both utilities and shipping companies to create “the world’s first transpacific green shipping corridor,” a pilot program to  shipping companies to deploy zero-carbon-emission vessels running on green hydrogen.

“By 2030, we want to see deep sea container ships operating on zero-carbon-emission fuels. How many ships are realistic by 2030 on a specific trade route will be determined through the study we will need to undertake to understand the fuel supply and the bunkering infrastructure requirements,” Kreynes said.

C40 is also interested in developing ship-to-shore policies aimed at cutting down diesel emissions from both docked ships and those waiting offshore for a berth at a terminal.

“We’re looking at shore power requirements to be absolute for all container vessels,” she said of the policy still in development.

“So regardless of the types of fuels [used], all ships will still need to plug in. The same goes for cargo handling equipment, which will be electric or powered by green hydrogen [fuel cells]. [A] zero-carbon-emissions requirement is a must by 2030.”

Collaboration with Industry

But none of this can be done without the participation of the industry itself.

“We need terminal operators; we need cargo owners; we need harbor craft companies; and we need fuel producers. So this is the coalition that has been working to put together this really exciting pilot, which we are hoping to be able to announce very soon,” Kreynes said. She added that the Port of L.A. will be leading the effort that will include overseas ports as well.

Those goals dovetail with the efforts of Pacific Environment, a California-based nonprofit that works to foster “grassroots activism” in communities around the Pacific Rim, whether in North America or Asia.

Madeline Rose, campaign climate director for Pacific Environment, described her organization as “a shipping industry watchdog,” noting that it has “gained a permanent consultative status of the International Maritime Organization, which sets international shipping law.”

“We’re now leading a global advocacy campaign to force the transition of ships off fossil fuels,” she added. “Fossil fuel shipping is just a massive global polluter. The industry accounts for 3% of global climate emissions today” and is annually adding to its emissions, she said.

But how to pressure the industry to switch to cleaner alternatives is the question.

About half of the maritime pollution comes from container ships, and Pacific Environment has determined that 15 container ship companies account for about 97% of the products sold by U.S. retailers. The major clients of container shippers include companies such as Walmart, Amazon and Costco, and they carry products made by companies such as Nike and Patagonia — all of which have “ambitious climate commitments.”

“They are vulnerable to public pressure because they have a direct relationship with all of us,” she said.

Rose added that Pacific Environment is also targeting smaller vessels: tugboats, ferries, dredges, excursion vessels and fishing boats that routinely ply the waters of most ports. She said the California Air Resources Board is moving toward new regulations “to encourage a zero-emission transition for all registered commercial harbor craft in California. We’re expecting that regulation to pass the Air Resources Board around January or February.”

But it won’t require immediate electrification, she added. “As written, it’s going to allow a vast majority of the vessels to either upgrade to cleaner diesel engines or electrify.”

The adoption of the new rule means that “over 1,000 vessels with hundreds of different companies in the next several years will be looking to partner with other organizations to make the transition to electrification, which includes green hydrogen fuel cells,” she added.

And that includes the federal government. “The U.S. government is one of the largest owners of harbor craft in the world,” Rose said. “The U.S. government owns 1,700 Harbor vessels.”

Discussion with Scott Schoenfeld — general manager of Fenix Marine Services, which relies on a fleet of more than 350 large diesel-powered equipment and vehicles to move tons of good through the L.A. and Long Beach ports — revealed just how difficult it will be to make the transition from fossil to hydrogen.

“My problem is that my business, which supplies the goods our nation needs and the exports we produce, is almost completely reliant on heavy machinery that is powered by diesel fuel,” he said.

“Roughly 40% of the containerized freight comes through the twin ports of L.A. and Long Beach, and containerized freight represents more than 90% of the goods you see on the store shelves.

“Fenix has made the switch to renewable diesel, purchased hybrid machines, purchased carbon credits and installed energy storage devices. But we currently still have no commercially viable option to purchase and power either battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell zero-emission port equipment. …

“We’re working on it. We’re piloting a lot of different options, but it’s a lot more than just being able to say ‘we’re going to do it’ and expect it to happen. … Our initial estimates show that if Fenix were to fully electrify our terminal, we would more than quadruple our electrical demand, from an already stretched electrical grid. … We face multiple brownouts and blackouts on a yearly basis, and this prevents us from doing our jobs and supplying all the goods that we need.”

The company has partnered with Toyota and took delivery of its first fuel cell-powered utility tractor rig (UTR) in November. The rig loads containers from ships onto heavy-duty trucks.

The Port of L.A. in June also deployed five fuel cell Class 8 trucks manufactured by Kenworth Trucks and powered by Toyota fuel cells, in a test of the technology. It expects to take delivery of another five trucks, as well as battery EVs, in the future. They use gray hydrogen.

Schoenfeld said Fenix would move quickly to fuel cell-powered UTRs and trucks if hydrogen were available at less than $3/kg.

Future Prices

Cheap green hydrogen looks as if it could be a reality by the end of the decade, according to BloombergNEF analyst Matthew Bravante.

In a separate discussion, Bravante said green hydrogen today is not competitive anywhere in the world because there is so little of it and because it is so expensive, at as much as $14/kg.

But, given its endorsement and funding by multiple governments, intense ongoing research — and the expected arrival of increasingly less expensive renewable energy to power electrolyzers that are also expected to drop in price — the cost of green hydrogen will dramatically decline, he said.

“By 2030 [the median price] will out-compete … blue hydrogen in nearly every major market. And in some major markets, you’ll start to see green hydrogen out-compete gray hydrogen,” he said.

“Within the next handful of decades, you’ll see a total paradigm shift in the cost of hydrogen, from green carbon-free hydrogen being the most expensive to green carbon-free hydrogen being the cheapest,” he predicted.

Initial demand for green hydrogen will come from refining and companies using ammonia to make fertilizers. Its use as a fuel for residential and commercial heating will likely follow as prices fall.

But even at $1/kg, hydrogen will may still not be cheap enough to decarbonize the entire economy, he said.

“The point I want to make is that hydrogen will start to decarbonize certain sectors at $2/kg, or $1.50/kg, or even $1/kg. But in order to fully decarbonize whole industries with hydrogen, you will still need some sort of carbon pricing mechanism,” he said, touching an issue that most politicians today regard as “the third rail” in any energy debate.

Pennsylvania Leaders Celebrate 25th Anniversary of Deregulation Law

It’s been a quarter-century since Pennsylvania took the step to fundamentally change its energy market to give customers the ability to choose their own electric supplier, encouraging them to shop around and compare prices.

Former Gov. Tom Ridge signed the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act of 1996 into law on Dec. 3 of that year, and business and energy leaders of today gathered virtually on Tuesday to talk about the impacts of the legislation that resulted in Pennsylvania customers paying electricity rates lower than the national average after being one of the most expensive states in the country for electric generation.

Data from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission shows that more than 1.5 million residential and 300,000 non-residential customers have taken advantage of the program, being provided more than 85 million MWh of electricity.

Nora-Mead-Brownell-(PGE)-Content.jpgFormer FERC Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell | PG&E

Nora Mead Brownell, former FERC commissioner and a founding partner of ESPY Energy Solutions, sat on the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission when the law went into effect. She called the debate in the legislature at the time “intense,” with many outside pressures influencing its development.

Brownell said while she’s excited to see what happens in the future with the competitive market program, its benefits have already created lasting impacts on the state, ranging from declining carbon emissions caused by retiring uncompetitive coal-fired generators to increased capacity and efficiencies for nuclear plants, “bringing value to customers.”

One of the “amazing” parts of the development of the competitive market, Brownell said, was the number of customers who chose to source their generation from green energy even though it was more expensive, something that wasn’t anticipated. Brownell said that choice sent a market signal, leading to investment in renewable energy like large wind farms in the western part of the state.

“Markets send signals, and individuals have options to express their preference,” Brownell said.

Business Impressions

Kevin Sunday, director of government affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, said the state “took a major step forward” in 1996 in the restructuring of its electricity markets. Sunday said the legislation “turned into a national example” of how to take risks off ratepayers and place them on the private sector where they could compete on prices and foster more efficiencies.

Over the last 25 years, Sunday said, Pennsylvania not only became the largest power producer in PJM, but it is now the largest net exporter of power of any state in the country. He said the energy exports to PJM are a “boon for reliability,” driving investments to areas of need.

“This landmark law has provided a foundation for energy policy long into the future,” Sunday said. “By empowering businesses and individuals with the choice to select the energy that makes the most sense for them, and rewarding innovation, the economy and the environment both win.”

Rod Williamson, executive director of the Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania (IECPA), said there were three key benefits to the legislation for large industrial customers.

The first was more competitive pricing, Williamson said, pointing to data from the Energy Information Administration that showed Pennsylvania had the ninth highest industrial electricity rates in the U.S. in 1995, a year before the law. In 2020, Pennsylvania ranked 30th in industrial electricity rates, coming in below the national average.

A second benefit was greater pricing flexibility and structuring the electricity supply. Williamson said companies are now able to lock in prices for years in advance, allowing for greater budget certainties and the ability to adjust operations to utilize lower market prices in off-peak times.

The third benefit was greater flexibility in the type of generation and the ability to seek lower carbon forms of generation. Williamson said some industrial customers are demanding more renewable energy sources, and the competitive electricity market allows them to control the type of renewable generation they’re purchasing.

“It’s for these key reasons that IECPA supports competitive energy markets and regulatory structures that facilitate a consumer’s use of these markets,” Williamson said.

David Taylor, CEO of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, said energy is one of the most important inputs for manufacturing, which makes up $93 billion of Pennsylvania’s economy. Taylor said enormous amounts of energy are consumed in the manufacturing process, and it’s a major “advantage” for the state to have “affordable, reliable, market-priced electricity.”

Taylor said the health of the manufacturing sector leads to the health of Pennsylvania’s economy.

“Competitive markets are foundational to Pennsylvania’s future economic success, and there is no going back,” Taylor said. “This is a benefit all consumers enjoy, but especially large energy-consuming manufacturing employers that employ the most people, add the most value and have the strongest multiplier effect on economic growth.”

Past and Future

When asked about the biggest challenge that had to be overcome in getting the competitive market law enacted in 1996, Brownell said “misinformation” and a desire by generating companies to remain the “monopoly provider” of electricity. She said competing goals led to a “brutal battle” with “enormous” amounts of political pressure.

Brownell said she didn’t blame generating companies who wanted to retain their positions, but as a policymaker, her job was to “deliver value for the customers, large and small.” She said the resulting jobs created as well as the resilience and reliability of the electricity supply from the competitive markets have all been “critically important” to the state.

As for the future of the competitive market, Brownell said there continues to be a challenge of educating the public on the benefits of the markets. She said the lower prices are the most visible benefit, but the resulting innovations have created a more resilient electric system.

Brownell said one action that can be taken is continued review and evaluation of the program to foster improvements.

“There’s no change that can’t be improved by continuing to evaluate outcomes, so it’s not a once and done deal,” Brownell said. “Markets evolve, so we need to continue to evolve to find better ways to help customers make different choices and expand the opportunity for them to manage their own energy use.”