Search
`
November 5, 2024

Posted on

California Looks to Cloud Seeding for Hydropower

A California Energy Commission workshop this week looked at using cloud seeding to increase winter precipitation and snowpack as a way to boost late spring and summer runoff and hydropower, especially in the current drought.

“Those of us who are based in California are all too aware that the ongoing drought situation makes these issues particularly salient right now,” Susan Wilhelm, team leader for energy-related environmental research at the CEC, said Tuesday at the workshop. “While hydroelectric power is an important source of zero-carbon dispatchable power in our state, by late summer, hydropower resources are significantly diminished. This is especially so during drought conditions and has been especially so this year.”

Most of the state is in exceptional or extreme drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Major reservoirs behind hydroelectric dams stand far below their averages for November. Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir, held 35% of its average content in mid-November and Lake Oroville held 58% of its average. The hydroelectric facility at Lake Oroville stopped producing power this summer for the first time since it opened in 1967 due to low water levels.

“There is a dire situation … [and] so cloud seeding is one of the viable alternatives to mitigate some of the adverse impacts of drought,” said Ramesh Gautam, manager of the snow survey program at the California Department of Water Resources. California and other Western states, including Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota, have been seeding clouds for decades, he said.

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has been seeding clouds over the upper American River watershed southwest of Lake Tahoe since 1969 to increase hydropower production.

“To obtain this, we use glaciogenic seeding techniques, dispersing silver iodide particles when cloud conditions are ideal,” said Kaitlyn Bednar, SMUD hydrographer and cloud seeding project manager. The particles can be dispersed from ground units or airplanes, she said.

“Silver iodide is used as a cloud seeding agent because it has a crystalline structure similar to ice crystals,” she said. “It acts as an effective ice nucleus at around negative four degrees Celsius and lower. Once seeded, these newly formed ice crystals then continue to grow at a more rapid rate and fall out of suspension.”

Seeding clouds in the right conditions increases snowpack by roughly 3% to 10%, Bednar said.

“So, for example, in an average year if you get 50 inches of snow water equivalent, cloud seeding can increase that value up to 55 inches, translating to a large increase of runoff and power generation,” she said.

SMUD expanded its target area in 2017 from roughly 190 square miles to 444 square miles and seeds from November to March, Bednar said. Evaluations in 1975 and again in 2017 showed SMUD’s cloud-seeding has had insignificant environmental effects, if any, she said.

Pacific Gas and Electric, the state’s largest utility, has been seeding clouds in the Sierra Nevada since 1952. It halted one longtime effort over Lake Almanor, in the Sierra Nevada foothills, due to push-back from residents concerned about toxins. But PG&E continues to seed the Mokelumne River watershed in the mountains southeast of Sacramento, as it has been doing for 70 years.

“The Mokelumne cloud-seeding project is one of the oldest continuous cloud-seeding projects in the world,” said Kenneth Ericsson, a PG&E meteorologist who works in the utility’s cloud-seeding program.

PG&E uses ground-based burners to send silver iodide particles into cold, water-laden clouds, resulting in precipitation increases of 6% to 15%, Ericsson said.

“With a 6% increase, this can add approximately 8,700 acre-feet of water per year over the long term for the Mokelumne project,” he said.

PG&E has been studying a proposal to seed clouds in the watersheds of the Pit and McCloud rivers near Mount Shasta in an area with 7 million-acre feet of natural underground aquifer storage, Ericsson said. Lake Shasta holds about 4.5 million acre-feet in comparison.

During severe or prolonged droughts, the aquifer could produce about 10% of usable water in California, he said. A 5% increase in precipitation from cloud seeding could add approximately 210,00 acre-feet of water per year to the aquifer, rivers and Lake Shasta, increasing hydropower production, he said.

Does It Work?

The efficacy of cloud seeding has been debated for decades, with increases in precipitation difficult to measure scientifically or with statistical accuracy.

Sarah Tessendorf, a project scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said supercomputing advances have allowed the “development of a new cloud seeding modeling capability that simulates the physics of cloud seeding.” Radar tracking and snow-gauge measurements have correlated with the computer predictions, Tessendorf said.

“One of the benefits of running the model is we can have a controlled experiment where we can see it in a simulation, and we can run the same simulation without seeding and look at the differences,” she said. “Something that we’ve been struggling with for decades is to have a truly controlled experiment in order to quantify the impacts of cloud seeding, so this modeling capability really moves us forward in that regard.”

In Idaho, an airplane distributed silver iodide while flying a zig-zag pattern. It resulted in precipitation falling in the same distinctive pattern, she said.

Frank McDonough, a former NASA scientist who heads the cloud-seeding program for the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nev., said human air pollution has lessened rainfall and snowfall, making it more difficult to determine if cloud seeding works.

“Potentially, the challenge of finding the cloud-seeding signature is we’re seeding in a time when precipitation efficiencies are decreasing,” McDonough said. “So what we might actually be doing is keeping the storms the way they were by doing the cloud seeding.”

Additional comments and materials can be found on the CEC’s website at docket 19-ERDD-01. The CEC said it would eventually post a recording of the workshop but had not done so as of Thursday afternoon.

Posted on

GridEx VI Incorporates Recent Cyber Lessons

NERC’s biennial GridEx security exercise this week “incorporated elements of some of the major [cyber]attacks” experienced in the past year, according to Manny Cancel, senior vice president at NERC and CEO of the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center.

GridEx VI consisted of two parts. First was a two-day distributed play exercise on Tuesday and Wednesday, in which more than 700 organizations took part including electric utilities, federal and state governments, manufacturers and supporting industries. The second part was a tabletop session on Thursday with executives from the electric, natural gas, finance and telecommunications industries; the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC); and U.S. and Canadian government officials.

In a media call prior to the tabletop session, NERC CEO Jim Robb said that he feels “really good about the defenses” the electric industry has created, citing the cybersecurity protections implemented through NERC’s Critical Infrastructure Protection standards and the “highly engaged executive culture” exemplified by the ESCC. However, the dependence of electric utilities on other sectors which do not have the same level of preparedness makes it imperative that they build strong relationships with those stakeholders, he said.

 “We all have to recognize that we can’t draw a box around the industry. Cross-sector impacts and the role of supply chain in assuring reliability and security are key, and that’s why events like GridEx are so important,” Robb said. “It brings all the players in the ecosystem together … to practice and drill, get to know each other, and grease those critical communication skids that would be required in an actual emergency. And it makes us all stronger together.”

While NERC did not reveal details about the scenarios for the distributed play or tabletop exercises, Cancel said that “supply chain attacks … attacks on remote access platforms, as well as ransomware [were] all incorporated.” Each of these attack vectors has been a major topic of conversation among critical infrastructure providers this year thanks to incidents like the hacks of the SolarWinds Orion and Microsoft Exchange platforms and the ransomware attack against Colonial Pipeline.

Pandemic Impacts Inform Exercise

This year’s GridEx was also the first since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and while participants praised the industry for showing up in spite of the logistical difficulties, the impact of the virus was keenly felt at the event. Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning said that the industry is well aware of the cybersecurity risks created by the need for most employees to work from home, and that these threats were a necessary element of the exercise.

“The pandemic opened up a different work environment, which I think will persist from here on out. The old work environment, of 80% of your employees having to be physically in the office, is probably [gone], and I’m sure we are all adopting hybrid approaches … that require linkages from your distant location into work,” Fanning said. “And so every intersection of communication provides an opportunity for the bad guys to get in.”

Fanning added that the workforce changes caused by the pandemic are “tactical” and do not rise to the same level of concern as “strategic changes” such as the growth of artificial intelligence and computing power that enable more sophisticated cyberattacks.

Robb added that the pandemic also affected the logistics of the event itself, forcing the tabletop exercise, which is usually held in person, to be conducted online. However, this decision did lend a bit of verisimilitude to the exercise, he added.

“In many ways [it’s] unfortunate because the relationships that we’ve built in the past through the tabletop have been very valuable, but it’s probably more reflective of reality,” Robb said. “In the event of an actual grid emergency, the likelihood of us getting 50 key people in a room in Washington, D.C. on day one [is around] zero. So I think this allows us to test our ability to work in a dispersed manner, to deal with a very real scenario that could play out.”

RTOs Pitch In

Representatives from the RTOs also took part in the exercise. Matt Turner, executive director of enterprise support and campus operations for CAISO, said the scenario modeled “multiple cyber and physical attacks” that gave more than 300 participants and observers from the organization and its reliability coordinators a chance to test their emergency response plans. The exercise included a test of the effectiveness of high-frequency radio communication among “multiple balancing authorities and [the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services].”

ERCOT, NYISO and ISO-NE also participated, with Zachary Hutchins of NYISO calling the exercise “an excellent opportunity … to test response plans alongside governmental agencies, supply chain partners, other ISOs and the broader utility industry.” PJM said more than 300 of its personnel took part in a “rigorous simulated challenge to our crisis response plans,” while nearly 200 MISO employees “tested system operations, security, [information technology], communications and the Unified Incident Command structure,” the RTO said.

“We have to be ready to respond not only to those events that we can imagine but also be flexible in these exercises to handle situations that we have never encountered,” said Mike Bryson, senior vice president of operations at PJM. “GridEx is invaluable for us to test our ability to keep the power flowing at all times while also learning how we can improve our own practices and fine tune our response plans.”

NERC will review the results of this year’s exercise for a public report, which it plans to release in March 2022.

Jason York, Michael Yoder, Michael Kuser, Hudson Sangree, Amanda Durish Cook and Tom Kleckner contributed to this article.

Posted on

CHESSA Working with Conservative Groups to Promote Solar in Rural Virginia Counties

Democrats’ stunning electoral losses in Virginia’s recent elections could usher in new opportunities for bipartisan action on clean energy and create a model for the rest of the country, according to Ron Butler, state director of Conservatives for Clean Energy Virginia (CCE-VA).

“I do think the change in government here could actually be a positive thing for what we’re trying to do,” Butler said during a panel discussion at the Chesapeake Solar and Storage Association (CHESSA) Solar Focus conference Tuesday. “That’s what I am going to be focused on over the next few months: trying to get some positive voices coming out on our side.”

He noted that Republican Governor-Elect Glenn Youngkin has supported an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy, which includes wind and solar. Youngkin was also a clean energy advocate when he was co-CEO of the Carlyle Group investment firm, boasting about the company’s achievement of carbon-neutrality in 2018, Butler said.

Making an economic and locally focused case for clean energy was a major theme in two conference sessions Tuesday: one on rural solar development in Virginia, and a second looking at the state’s solar market in general and the potential legislative challenges ahead with a new 52-48 Republican majority in the House of Delegates.

On the one hand, Del. Todd Gilbert (R), the incoming speaker, has set the repeal of Virginia’s landmark Clean Economy Act (VCEA) as a priority, while Del. Terry Kilgore (R), the new majority leader, voted for the law and has been a strong advocate for energy storage. Passed in 2020, the VCEA sets Virginia on a path to zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and mandates the closure of most of its coal-fired plants by the end of 2024. The law also calls for the state to develop 5,200 MW of offshore wind, 16,000 MW of solar and onshore wind, and 3,100 MW of energy storage.

Harry Godfrey, executive director of Virginia Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), said the Democrat-led state Senate should serve as a firewall to stave off any repeal attempts. But he also stressed that solar industry advocates should “emphasize the job creation opportunities, the community investment opportunities and then the broader economic gains that are being made as a result of this [law], and as a result the business certainty the VCEA creates.”

The law is driving major economic development opportunities in the state, Godfrey said, drawing data centers and other energy-intensive businesses; for example, Microsoft’s planned expansion of its data center in southern Virginia. The companies are coming, Godfrey said, “because they are looking for states where they know they’re going to be able to effectively decarbonize their load, and the VCEA will help give them certainty and … manage their costs.”

In rural counties, the economic argument can also help ease projects through local permitting before city councils or land-use boards, said Skyler Zunk, Virginia field director for the Land & Liberty Coalition, a nonprofit which began in Michigan and now works in a total of 10 states, supporting “conservative, responsible” clean energy development.

“Since the outset, our goal has been to create a baseline of support in every county in which we engage so that developers can come into these communities, and [we can] point them toward a list of good conservatives who support these energy projects for their own set of reasons,” Zunk said. “Some want to see it bolster the local county tax revenue budget. Some want to see diversification of income; some want to see investment, creation of jobs [and/or] more spending in their communities when these multimillion-dollar projects come to these locations. We’re taking everybody’s different angles into our tent and hopefully making them better advocates.”

‘Stay the Course’

The panel on the Virginia solar market looked more at the impact of the November election than specific market drivers or segments.

While concerned about possible Republican efforts — both in the House and at the Virginia State Corporation Commission — to roll back the state’s progress on clean energy, Del. Alfonso Lopez (D) framed the Democratic losses as “a short-term issue … from a political, electoral standpoint. The long game in Virginia is very much embracing renewable energy, embracing the benefits of an environmental as well as just a bottom-line perspective, and that we only have room to grow.”

He also noted that many of Virginia’s clean energy laws have passed with bipartisan support; for example, the 2019 compromise legislation (SB 1769) that raised the cap for net metering for the state’s electric cooperatives, opening the way for more residential rooftop solar development.

Given past bipartisan successes and current political realities, Virginia AEE’s approach is to advocate for a “diversified energy future,” Godfrey said. “It is not overly reliant upon one particular resource but is a combination of solar and wind, battery storage and grid-edge solutions, along with a host of other technologies, all working in tandem to provide affordable, reliable and clean generation. … Our philosophy is how do we bring these technologies into play? How do we create markets that allow each of these technologies to thrive?”

Based on the job creation and other economic benefits the VCEA is already providing, he said, industry messaging to state legislators should emphasize the need to “stay the course. If you believe you’re a pro-business lawmaker and want to see Virginia grow, the best thing to do is stay the course.”

Brandon Smithwood, senior director of policy for Dimension Renewable Energy, a solar developer, said he spends a lot of time in Republican states where advancing solar depends on making it a bipartisan issue, especially at the local level.

“Some of the challenges that we’re seeing, they’re really [about] permitting projects,” Smithwood said. “A lot of these projects are in conservative parts of the state, and so it was going to be a bipartisan issue anyways because it’s local supervisors in those counties that are making the decisions whether the projects move forward.”

Lopez called for the solar industry to be “out in force” for the coming session of the Virginia legislature, and not just for single organized days. “It’s got to be the dozens of solar CEOs and executives who are building large footprints here in the commonwealth. You’ve got to be in Richmond throughout the session, and you all have to be pushing the same narrative about why growth of renewable energy and growth of solar specifically is so vitally important in Virginia,” he said.

Consistency will be critical, Lopez said. “Every time there’s a hearing, every time there’s a conversation, you’re basically knocking it out of the park,” he said. “That’s how we continue to move forward. That’s how we avoid going back.”

Different Perspectives, Different Tools

The permitting roadblocks developers like Dimension have encountered in Virginia’s rural, largely Republican counties  have prompted CHESSA to work with conservative groups like CCE-VA and Land & Liberty, a recent effort discussed during the panel on land-use issues and rural solar development.

“The goal of CHESSA was to work with rural counties and to bring a value proposition to them that would be unique to them,” said John G. “Chip” Dicks of Gentry Locke Attorneys, CHESSA’s lobbyist in the state capital of Richmond. Local opposition to solar projects means “we need to take a different perspective and to use different tools and a different rationale,” Dicks said.

Land & Liberty started in Michigan, where despite Democratic leadership in state government, projects were still running into local opposition and permitting problems, said Bradley Pischea, the organization’s deputy director. The group’s mission is twofold, he said, “to amplify the voices that already exist in a supportive community, but then also [to] go out and find the ones we can pull into that chorus that already exists.”

The focus is always on issues that resonate well with conservatives, Pischea said. “This is going to fund your local police force. This is going to fund your roads and flow into school funding as well.”

Land & Liberty’s approach aligns well with the findings of a survey CCE-VA conducted in the summer months before the election, Butler said. While the survey found broad support for solar across the state, the one issue that elicited the most positive response was property rights, he said.

“The property owner should have the right to use their land to develop solar if that’s what they want to do because it’s clean energy that benefits everyone,” he said. “The climate change issue doesn’t really resonate with [conservatives]; that’s not something that gets them to ‘yes,’ but the property rights angle does.”

Even before developers are on the scene, Land & Liberty starts building relationships with local conservatives, positioning the organization as an educational nonprofit with a particular focus on land-use issues. Zunk has been traveling the state, talking “with local folks, boards of supervisors, planning commissions, business owners, community members, everybody who has some feasible way of touching the solar industry,” he said.

“When we’re able to approach them with a good deal of on-the-ground knowledge and speak the language that these board members are used to speaking and message to them the kinds of messages that they’re most likely to support —  property rights, economic development, paying for local public goods with their tax revenue — it’s easy to chat with them and have a normal conversation,” Zunk said. “We’ll never lead off with, ‘Hey, there’s this project that you should support.’”

Posted on

Louisiana PSC Defers Vote to Force MISO Exit

Louisiana regulators on Wednesday shelved a vote that might have compelled Entergy Louisiana and Cleco Power to leave MISO for another grid operator.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission deferred an agenda item that could have required Entergy and Cleco to provide MISO a one-year notice of membership withdrawal. The potential vote was postponed to the commission’s Dec. 14 meeting and set off a tense exchange between PSC Chairman Craig Greene and Commissioner Eric Skrmetta.

Louisiana regulators in October said they would consider forcing their utilities to leave MISO if their ratepayers are forced to fund transmission built in the footprint’s northern reaches. Skrmetta was most vocal about the exit option. (See La. Regulators Threaten MISO Departure over Tx Costs.)

According to its membership agreement for transmission owners, MISO requires departing TOs to provide it with a year’s advance notice of their intent to exit the system.

Skrmetta said the delay gives the PSC time review MISO’s cost-allocation FERC filing for its long-range transmission plan.

The RTO has said it will create two separate but identical cost-allocation designs for its Midwest and South subregions that rely on a 100% postage stamp rate to load. But the grid operator also committed to conducting three-year reviews examining whether new Midwestern transmission benefits MISO South. (See MISO Schedules Cost-allocation FERC Filing.)

“The good news is there are alternative markets available if MISO does not prove to be [an] economic value to the citizens of the state,” Skrmetta said during the commission’s meeting Wednesday, referring to SPP or the new Southeastern Energy Exchange Market (SEEM).

The Entergy Regional State Committee recently hosted SPP staff and SEEM representatives for presentations on the organization’s membership. Louisiana regulators have considered both as alternatives to MISO, although staff has not embarked on a formal study. (See SPP, SEEM Woo Entergy Regulators at NARUC.)

Entergy has been part of the MISO grid since 2013. Its membership suspended a federal antitrust investigation into the utility.

Greene, Campbell Balk at MISO Divorce

The vote delay appeared in part because of Greene’s hesitation at Louisiana utilities forgoing MISO’s market savings. He acknowledged there’s currently a lot of “noise” around the RTO’s transmission-planning process.

“Participation in the MISO market has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits to [Louisiana] utility customers over the last seven years by expanding access to more resources,” he said. “The more resources available, the better for customers. I do not support walking away from an organized market that provides opportunities to attract private investment to the state.”

Greene also said the state hasn’t conducted a cost-benefit analysis “indicating we would somehow be better off without MISO.”

“So far, I think it’s universal that we all agree we want to get the best benefit and value for ratepayers. So far, I think it’s only Commissioner Skrmetta’s opinion that we should leave MISO, not the opinion of the public service commission, or at least of me,” Greene said.

“Speak for yourself,” Skrmetta retorted.

“Yeah, I think you have already,” Greene countered.

“Well, you’re doing a good job on your own. I’m your huckleberry,” Skrmetta said.

Greene noted that the commission’s concerns with MISO relate to transmission planning and cost allocation. He said he would wait until the grid operator made its cost allocation filing before rendering judgement.

“I look forward to that clarification and removing the uncertainty around this issue in December,” Greene said, adding later that it’s “pivotal” that Louisiana work with MISO on reliability and affordability.

Greene previously said an organized wholesale market is a “necessity” for Louisiana.

Commissioner Foster Campbell pointed out that ratepayers in his northern Louisiana district are expected to pay for Entergy’s storm recovery efforts in coastal and southern Louisiana. He drew parallels between that and MISO South bearing transmission costs from the Midwest.

“The argument is, ‘They’re doing something up north, and we’re paying for it down south,’” he said. “Let me remind you something … we’re paying for: all the storms we never have with Entergy. … We’re talking all of this about north and south. Sometimes that happens. … We pay like we were living in New Orleans.”

Campbell said he doesn’t support a break with MISO, just like he doesn’t advocate splitting Louisiana into separate cost zones.

“You all were bragging about how good it was last year. And this year, you all don’t have the religion. I don’t know what happened,” he told commission staff, referencing previous savings under MISO membership.

Skrmetta reminded commissioners that MISO is considering $130 billion worth of transmission projects.

“That’s a monumental element that would attack our rates in a way we’ve never seen,” he said. “So, we need to keep our eye on the issue; we need to keep our eye on what’s the best market for our public. It really is about the money.”

Entergy Louisiana spokesperson Brandon Scardigli said the utility remains satisfied with MISO membership.

“Since Entergy Louisiana became a member of MISO, our customers have realized significant cost savings and operational benefits associated with MISO membership,” he wrote in an emailed statement to RTO Insider. “We will continue to actively participate in the MISO stakeholder process to advocate for policies that ensure that our customers’ interests are protected and that they continue to receive a reasonable level of benefits from MISO membership.

“We also support the Louisiana PSC’s interest in continuing to monitor Entergy Louisiana’s participation in MISO to ensure that membership remains beneficial for our customers,” he said.

Posted on

Overheard at NECA Power Markets: ‘Unqualified Reliability’ is Out

In the stakeholder conversations on power market development, the phrases most often used these days are transformation, transition to clean energy and momentous change, said Sheila Keane, director of analysis at New England States Committee on Electricity.

And with big changes comes a lot of uncertainty, Keane said at the Northeast Energy and Commerce Association’s Power Markets Conference on Tuesday. Keane moderated a panel on power market developments in New England with perspectives from experts representing generators, transmission owners, clean energy advocates and consumers.

Vermont Department of Public Service Commissioner June Tierney set the mood for the panel in a keynote speech that highlighted the challenges in current market conditions and set the priorities she sees for market development.

“Reaching our carbon-free future requires that we make new choices in designing the markets that will take us to our decarbonized future — new choices that are more respectful of the laws enacted by our New England states,” she said.

Doing so, she added, is complicated and messy, and everyone will not always agree or be happy.

The ISO’s core job can no longer be “unqualified reliability,” Tierney said. Instead, it must “achieve reliability, fueled by renewability with a keen eye on affordability,” she said. “That is what the sovereign New England states want because that is what their people need.”

Affordability, she said, is a necessary part of the lexicon for power market development. On the path to what some people call “beneficial electrification,” prices must encourage beneficial customer behaviors, such as buying an electric vehicle or heat pump, she said.

Expert Views

ISO-NE acknowledges that “things need to change,” as evidenced by its proposal to eliminate the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR), Andrew Gillespie, director of market development at ISO-NE, said during the panel discussion.

“Our proposal is not only to remove the MOPR, but to adjust the demand curve to account for the impact on the cost of capital to supply, including the existing generators,” Gillespie said. “We feel that that is the middle of the road.”

The ISO, he said, is trying to find common ground, and it recognizes the “changing nature” of the fleet and that environmental issues are the driver of the change.

As New England states push for electrification in heating and transportation, the grid needs to procure more significant amounts of clean energy to meet climate goals, said Priya Gandbhir, staff attorney at Conservation Law Foundation.

“I think that the ISO is aware of its role in achieving these goals, and it certainly seems on their list of to-dos, but it’s unclear whether the level to which the ISO prioritizes these issues is strong enough,” she said.

CLF and its partners, she said, are prepared to push the ISO and states to make the necessary changes that will ensure sectoral transitions are supported by a clean grid.

Looking to the future of New England’s electricity system, the question will not be whether the generation mix will be clean, said Rebecca Tepper, chief of the Energy and Environment Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. The real question is how to build that mix in the most cost-effective and reliable way, she said.

“We’re hoping that we’ll be able to use the wholesale markets in a way that will result in a better outcome,” she said. “But we’re still talking about the same two issues that we’ve been talking about for years, which is incorporating those clean energies into the market and resource adequacy.”

A positive outcome will be tied to valuing resources for the purpose of reliability.

“That needs to be done both for clean resources and for thermal resources,” she said.

As it stands, states have a lot of unanswered questions about power market development and the mechanisms for clean energy procurement that may come from it, said James Daly, vice president of energy supply at Eversource Energy (NYSE: ES).

Largely New England states are relying on utility power purchase agreements and clean energy standards to reach their climate goals, Daly said, adding that the “jury is still out” as to whether they will cede that control to the ISO.

For Daly, the priorities for market development are environment, reliability and affordability.

“We need to pay attention to whether we have the generation today secured and operational and with the fuel it needs to get us to that future state and not have market dislocations along the way,” he said.

Studies have shown that New England states will need natural gas generation for grid reliability well beyond 2030. And some stakeholders believe carbon pricing is the best option to support the energy transition, said Brett Kruse, vice president of government and regulatory affairs at Calpine.

Carbon pricing, he said, is “politically bad” because states do not support it.

He sees some potential for the market to evolve by 2025 whereby states obtain their capacity through bilateral contracts and the ISO runs a pure reliability market.

But he’s not too optimistic about that possibility.

“I’m just not sure you can change the market enough soon enough, which is important to be able to accomplish that in the market-related way,” he said.

Posted on

Lamont’s TCI-P Reversal Surprises Environmental Advocates, Lawmakers

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont on Tuesday said he would not pursue the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P) next year, arguing that rising gas prices make the enabling legislation “a pretty tough rock to push” through the General Assembly.

The pronouncement surprised environmental advocates and lawmakers alike despite the roller-coaster ride TCI-P has been on since December 2020 when Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and D.C. signed a memorandum of understanding to launch the regional compact. This spring, a bill to enable TCI-P in Connecticut made it out of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee but not to a full vote. Calls to include TCI-P in a special session never came to fruition.

Lamont’s comments were first reported by the Hartford Courant.

TCI-P would institute a declining cap on allowable carbon emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel sold, and require suppliers to purchase carbon allowances at auction. Allowances are projected to generate revenues of up to $89 million in 2023 and as much as $117 million in 2032. The program would direct at least 50% of this money to communities overburdened by air pollution or underserved by the transportation system. It also would establish an equity and environmental justice advisory board to counsel the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and Department of Transportation on equitable outcomes.

Republican lawmakers and gasoline trade associations labeled TCI-P as a “gas tax” in the form of potential pass-down costs from fuel suppliers to consumers. DEEP analysis shows participation could boost gas prices by 5 cents/gallon beginning in 2023, assuming fuel suppliers choose to pass down 100% of allowance costs to consumers. Multiple consumer protection safeguards, including a cost-containment reserve, would kick in at 9 cents/gallon. Opponents said the 5- to 9-cent increase applies to the first year of TCI-P alone, with prices potentially rising by as much as 26 cents.

Amy McLean, Connecticut director and senior policy advocate for Acadia Center, told NetZero Insider she has worked with a “diverse coalition” to push TCI-P and thought there was momentum heading into next year’s General Assembly session.

“The argument that this is not being supported by the people who in many ways are the most impacted by the health effects of transportation emissions is false,” McLean said. “That’s part of the surprise that we have because that was the main plank of this administration’s desire to support the Transportation Climate Initiative.”

State Rep. Joseph Gresko (D), co-chair of the Environment Committee, told NetZero Insider he understands Lamont “reading the political tea leaves” on spiking gas prices heading into an election year in 2022 and not allowing Republicans to weaponize passage of TCI-P. However, Gresko said that should not blur the fact that emissions are an issue in Connecticut.

“DEEP will be the first one to tell you that we have a problem with continued traffic on the road … and that’s not getting any better,” Gresko said.

The department released a report in September that stated Connecticut is off track from its statutory 2030 and 2050 economy-wide emission-reduction targets. The state emitted 42.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2018, the most recent year that data are available. That is 2.9% higher than the state’s 2020 emissions goal and a 2.7% increase from the 2017 inventory. In addition, at 15.8 million metric tons, transportation emissions exceeded the combined emissions of the electricity and residential sectors and have been rising since 1990 despite improvements in fuel economy.

Gresko said he sympathizes with environmental advocates who pushed TCI-P and continue doing it. He said he would be among the Democrats working with them and talking to DEEP about incentivizing electric vehicles and EV charging stations, as gas prices could continue to rise along with emissions.

“I’m more of the ilk of taking advantage of these high gas prices by pushing EVs and building out the infrastructure ourselves via subsidies and incentives,” Gresko said. “Then people would be hopefully making those larger decisions themselves saying, ‘Hey, I’m interested in an electric vehicle because I don’t want to pay XY and Z for gas.”

McLean said TCI-P is one part of the equation for reducing transportation emissions. She noted that the adoption of California emissions standards on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and electrification of public transportation are two additional solutions, which could work in conjunction with TCI-P.

She also challenged Republican lawmakers to move beyond the “gas tax” argument and offer a solution.

“As far as the tax issue, it’s so easy; it’s low-hanging fruit,” McLean said. “That’s what you go to when you want to scare people. This is the Republican playbook. It’s not rocket science. I would challenge them to come up with a solution other than what has been put on the table. We have, and they have nothing.”

Posted on

NERC Standards Committee Agrees to New Cold Weather Project

NERC’s Standards Committee will move ahead with a new standards development project motivated by February’s winter storms, following a short delay that provoked a rebuke from the organization’s Board of Trustees.

The committee voted at its meeting on Wednesday to accept a standards authorization request (SAR) aimed at ensuring “improved operations, preparedness and coordination during extreme weather” by adopting the recommendations from the joint FERC-NERC inquiry into the storms, released on Tuesday. (See related story, FERC, NERC Release Final Texas Storm Report.) Along with approving the SAR, the committee also approved posting the SAR for a 30-day formal comment period and soliciting SAR drafting team members from industry.

The recommendations in Tuesday’s report include requiring generator owners and/or operators to identify and protect cold weather-critical components, build or retrofit generating units to operate to specific ambient temperatures and weather, and perform annual training on winterization plans.

NERC introduced the same SAR at the committee’s last meeting in October, but the committee declined to approve it. At that point the joint inquiry’s final report had not been released yet, and committee members were reluctant to move forward with a project based only on the preliminary report issued in September. (See NERC Standards Committee Delays Action on Cold Weather SAR.)

Attendees at NERC’s November board meeting expressed frustration with the committee’s inaction: CEO Jim Robb described FERC Chair Richard Glick reacting with “befuddlement and disbelief” and warned that “we can’t use the process … to delay dealing with issues.” (See “Frustration at Cold Weather Delay,” NERC Board of Trustees/MRC Briefs: Nov. 4, 2021.) Board Chair Ken DeFontes said that while the desire for a “deliberate and measured” approach to standards development is understandable, February’s experience showed the need for “dramatic adjustments in how the industry approaches winter preparation.”

Although the committee approved the SAR without objection, Marty Hostler, reliability compliance manager for the Northern California Power Agency, noted that the recommendations in the text of the SAR were different than those given in the joint inquiry report released on Tuesday because it was the same text submitted at the October meeting. He warned that leaving outdated language in the SAR could lead to unnecessary confusion.

“This is based on a PowerPoint presentation that was provided [in October], but the actual final report is different and has different wording and ordering,” Hostler said. “So, instead of getting a bunch of questions after the posting, are they going to type in [the] actual recommendations?”

Howard Gugel, NERC’s vice president of engineering and standards, pointed out that the committee’s resolution required that the drafting team ensure the final SAR “reflect the final recommendation wording and numbering of the final joint inquiry report.” He acknowledged that the Standards Committee’s Executive Committee could update the SAR with the wording from the final report, but because this would take more time — albeit no more than “a day or two” — he didn’t consider it worthwhile.

Chair Amy Casuscelli, of Xcel Energy, also spoke out against changing the SAR. She said that the SAR drafting team would understand that the committee expected it to reconcile the draft SAR to the final recommendations and that she “wouldn’t like to see any additional delay” on the project.

“I know that lots of us are ready and willing and chomping at the bit to get started on this,” Casuscelli said.

Other Standards Actions

Also approved at Wednesday’s meeting was a project to modify the CIP-002-5.1a (Cybersecurity — BES cyber system categorization) reliability standard; the committee voted to approve the project’s SAR, post it for comment and authorize solicitation of SAR drafting team members. The project is intended to revise the standard to include some types of cyber assets associated with high- and medium-impact bulk electric system cyber systems.

A separate item approved by the committee authorizes the Project 2021-03 (CIP-002 Transmission owner control centers) standard drafting team to conduct a field test to help guide further development projects relating to the CIP-002 standard. The field test “will obtain data from transmission owners and transmission operators” via a series of questionnaires to be sent between March and September 2022.

The last action approved by the committee regarding standards was the posting for a 45-day comment period of the proposed FAC-001-4 (Facility interconnection requirements) and FAC-002-4 (Facility interconnection studies). Both standards are part of Project 2020-05 (Modifications to FAC-001 and FAC-002), initiated last year at the request of NERC’s Inverter-based Resource Performance Task Force.

The proposed changes would remove the term “materially modified,” referring to modified facilities being reconnected to the BES. This wording has been criticized as ambiguous, so the changes would include replacing it with “qualified change.” A new requirement has also been added to clarify that a qualified change is to be determined by the region’s planning coordinator.

Posted on

Rulemaking Underway for Washington Climate Laws

Washington officials have begun the nuts-and-bolts rulemaking on three major climate change bills the state’s legislature passed in April.

The three new laws include the nation’s second cap-and-trade bill, a low-carbon fuel standard bill and a bill to cut refrigerant greenhouse gases.

State agency officials briefed the Senate’s Environment, Energy and Technology Committee Tuesday on the rulemaking schedules for those new laws.

The new cap-and-invest law (SB 5126) goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Washington has joined California as the nation’s only states with comprehensive cap-and-trade programs. (See Wash. Becomes 2nd State to Adopt Cap-and-trade.) California participates in the Western Climate Initiative cap-and-trade pact with Quebec.

SB 5126 calls for state officials to engage in brainstorming efforts to create a system to set an annual cap on total industrial carbon emissions, a cap that slowly decreases through the years. Large emitters would submit quarterly bids to the state in an auction for greenhouse gas emissions allowances. Companies would be allowed to buy, sell and trade those allowances.

On Tuesday, officials said the greenhouse gas standards have been recently proposed internally at the state’s Department of Ecology, which will manage the program.  The agency is expected to review and adopt those standards by February 2022.

Ecology officials are expected to propose a basic framework for the cap-and-invest program next spring, with final regulations to be reviewed and adopted by October 2022.

Specific regulations to safeguard industries with significant foreign competition are expected to be proposed internally in December, with that proposal to be reviewed and adopted by July 2022.

LCFS, Refrigerants Rules

The legislature last spring also passed a low-carbon fuel standard bill, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2023. (See LCFS Bill Passes Washington Legislature.)

The bill requires that carbon emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Washington be cut by 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and by 20% by 2035. It excludes emissions from fuel that is exported out of state or used by water vessels and railroad locomotives.

Under the program, biofuels would likely be blended with petroleum-based fuels. State officials say vehicle emissions account for 45% of Washington’s carbon pollution.

On Tuesday, state officials told the committee that informal public comments are being accepted, with listening sessions set for Jan. 27 and Feb 23, 2022. The Ecology Department will line up an internal proposal on protective regulations by summer 2022 with regulations formally adopted by winter 2022.

Also on Tuesday, the Senate committee learned that the Ecology Department will accept public input through February 2023 on rules covering hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions from air conditioners and large refrigeration units.

HB 1050 calls for reducing the climate impact of refrigerants used in air conditioners by roughly 70% and in commercial refrigeration systems by about 90%. HFCs account for roughly 4% — or 4 million tons — of Washington’s GHG emissions. The bill is modeled on regulations recently approved by the California Air Resources Board.

The bill enables the state government to set the maximum global warming potential (GWP) measurements for the gases within all sizes of refrigeration units. It would also require grocery stores, ice rinks and other owners of large refrigeration units to periodically check for HFC leaks. Maximum GWP is a measure of an HFC’s ability to retain heat in the atmosphere compared to a similar volume of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

The bill establishes an upper GWP limit of 750 for new air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. That standard goes into effect for room air conditioners and dehumidifiers in 2023, and for air conditioning systems with variable refrigerant flows or volumes on Jan. 1, 2026. For other types of refrigeration equipment, the new standards go into effect Jan. 1, 2025.

Environmental Justice Update

As part of the cap-and-invest bill, Washington is also appointing an environmental justice panel to ensure that low-income neighborhoods and communities of color will not be disproportionally burdened with excess pollution. The bill anticipates the auctions would raise several hundred million dollars that the state can allocate to those areas.

Sierra Rotakhina, the new manager of the Environmental Justice Council, outlined what is happening with the proposed 16-person body. Members will represent communities, tribes, environmental justice or academic constituencies, business and labor.

The governor’s office on boards and commissions is vetting applicants to the council, with Rotakhina expecting the body to be running by January.

Several state agencies are expected to develop plans to obtain public feedback on environmental justice issues to present to the council in 2022.  In 2023, the council will work on how state agencies should deal with environmental justice matters and map out funding needs.

Posted on

Pacific NW Leaders Sign High-speed Rail MOU

The leaders of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding Tuesday to push for development of an ultra-high-speed train line from Portland to Vancouver, B.C.

The rail line under consideration would support a train going 250 mph for 310-320 miles between Vancouver and Portland, depending on location of the end stations. Seattle would be the primary midway stop. Train systems capable of going 250 mph exist in China, Japan, Spain and France.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and British Columbia Premier John Horgan signed the MOU at the annual Cascadia Innovation Corridor Conference, a gathering to discuss the common economic issues among the two U.S. states and one Canadian province.

“We will coordinate with our partners on pursuing federal funding for a high-speed rail and engage communities throughout our region,” Inslee said in a press release. The press release noted Congress is working on a high-speed rail funding program.

This concept of a high-speed Seattle-to-Vancouver rail has been on the drawing board for at least 20 years but has remained dormant. Inslee has pushed the concept as a way to cut back on pollution from vehicles traveling Interstate 5 from Vancouver to Portland. I-5 is routinely plagued with traffic jams from 20 miles north to 35 miles south of Seattle

“A two-track high-speed guideway can reliably support 6-8 trains per hour in each direction,” according to a report presented to the 2016 Cascadia Innovation Corridor Conference by engineering services firm WSP. “This would mean a train connecting Seattle and Vancouver every 10-15 minutes, with some operating as non-stop express and others stopping at Everett and Bellingham.”

In 2016, WSP estimated that an ultra-high-speed rail line from Seattle to Vancouver would cost $125 million to $1 billion per mile depending on the terrain and other factors. So far, none of the three governments have provided a cost estimate for a 310-mile project.

On Tuesday, Inslee pointed to a 2018 Washington Department of Transportation study of the concept that concluded the rail line could create $355  billion in economic growth while cutting back on greenhouse gases and allowing people to live in affordable housing away from larger, more expensive cities.

That same study also said the land for such a line needs to be analyzed, the technology needs to be studied, and finances and funding need to be worked out. Also, a governing body for such a venture must be created.

Posted on

Fusion Company Gets $500M Investment

Private investors have poured an additional $500 million into a Seattle-area company that believes the fusion reactor it’s developing can achieve net electricity generation by 2024.

Currently, fusion reactors use more energy than they produce. “Net electricity generation” is the Holy Grail of fusion — a reactor producing more electricity than it takes in.

Redmond, Wash.-based Helion Energy is one of at least 10 ventures worldwide that are trying to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor to produce electricity. In July, Helion Energy broke ground in nearby Everett on a 154,000 square-foot research and manufacturing facility to be completed in early 2022. (See Wash. Company Scales up Fusion Energy Efforts.)

A year ago, Helion’s prototype reactor produced a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for a fraction of a second, a threshold scientists believe is needed for practical fusion power. While government and academic fusion ventures have hit that benchmark, Helion is the first private operation to do so.

Many fusion reactor projects call for a steady maintenance of the 100-million-degree Celsius threshold. Helion’s approach works somewhat like pistons in an engine — producing 100-million-degree temperatures in pulses. Helion’s sixth-generation reactor can produce a nanosecond pulse once every 10 minutes. The company is aiming to produce a nanosecond pulse every second.

Helion was founded by CEO David Kirtley, CTO Chris Pihl and Principal Scientist George Votroubek. Last year, the company picked up $40 million in funding. Its main investors include billionaire Dustin Moskovitz, a co-founder of Facebook; Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn; the U.S. Department of Energy; Capricorn Investment Group; and Mithril Capital Management.

The latest $500 million round of financing comes from existing investors, including Sam Altman, CEO of the artificial intelligence research firm OpenAI, Moskovitz, Mithril and Capricorn.

“The $500 million already raised fully funds Helion to reach the 2024 target on achieving net electricity from Polaris [the name of the seventh-generation fusion reactor to be developed],” Helion spokesman Isaac Steinmetz told NetZero Insider in an email.

In a recent blog post, Altman wrote: “With a tiny fraction of the money spent on other fusion efforts but the culture of a startup, [Helion] and their team have built a generator that produces electricity. Helion has a clear path to net electricity by 2024 and has a long-term goal of delivering electricity for 1 cent per kilowatt-hour.  If this all works as we hope, we may have a path out of the climate crisis.”

If Helion hits that 2024 target, its investors will provide an additional $1.7 billion.

Getting the Pulse Right

Helion, General Fusion and Tri-Alpha Energy (now TAE Technologies) all said years ago that they would have practical fusion by 2019 or 2020, and none have hit those targets.

In his email, Steinmetz wrote that it normally takes two to three years to upgrade a fusion reactor prototype from one generation to the next. The sixth-generation prototype can produce the commercially relevant fusion conditions.

“With Polaris, it’s a matter of engineering to scale the pulsed, non-ignition method for this proven fusion capability up to the [one nanosecond pulse per second] frequency that creates net electricity generation,” Steinmetz said.

“There will always be unanticipated technical challenges and risks that come up in our pursuit of net electricity by 2024,” Steinmetz said. “The biggest challenge our team faces now is increasing our pulse rep rate from one pulse every 10 minutes, to one pulse per second. However, we’re confident that we have the groundwork in place from all past iterations of Helion’s fusion generator to hit our target.”

A fusion reactor ideally will be smaller, cheaper and safer than the huge fission power reactors that currently dot the world, but so far no one has been able to create nuclear fusion outside of a hydrogen bomb, in which nuclear fission sparks the explosion that leads to fusion. Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in our sun and the stars.

Fusion slams together the cores of two atoms to create the core of one new atom. In today’s fusion efforts, the cores of two hydrogen atoms are crunched to create a new helium atom, with the resulting energy being eyed to create electricity. The hydrogen atoms are actually deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen that includes a neutron.

Fusion is supposed to be dramatically cheaper than fission reactors because of the relatively small amount of deuterium needed as opposed to the processed uranium fuel used for fission. Water is cheaper compared with uranium, and the waste disposal problem is tiny compared with trying to find places to put used nuclear waste and spent fuel rods.

Fusion has existed on the drawing board since the 1920s, but it has been missing the right temperatures, the right atomic cores, the right slamming speeds, the right conditions of the plasmas to envelope the colliding atom cores, the right oscillating magnetic fields enclosing the reaction, the right balance of these forces, and other necessary factors.