Search
`
November 13, 2024

Posted on

Report: Mass. Has Significant OSW Workforce Gaps for 1.6 GW Pipeline

More than half of the jobs needed to build Massachusetts’ first 1.6 GW of offshore wind (OSW) have a moderate to significant workforce gap in the state, according to a report released Wednesday.

The 2021 MassCEC Offshore Wind Workforce Assessment found a significant workforce gap for 36% of the occupations needed to develop the state’s OSW. An additional 27% have a moderate workforce gap, and 37% have sufficient workers.

Gov. Charlie Baker joined state and local officials at the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal to announce the release of the report, which BW Research Partnership prepared for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.

“As Massachusetts prepares for the construction of the first commercial-scale offshore wind project in the nation, our administration is focused on ensuring our workforce is trained, ready and offers pathways to employment for all residents, especially in the communities that can most benefit from this generational economic opportunity,” Baker said.

Massachusetts is most prepared to supply management and engineering professionals and maritime workers, but it lacks construction laborers, transportation workers and general maintenance workers, the report said.

Training

To help the state fill existing workforce gaps, the report identified relevant training options for individuals who are employed and need training or are already in an educational program, and people not currently employed.

Massachusetts has an opportunity to close the workforce gap in construction and operations by ensuring that people who already have jobs can access OWS safety training.

“Developers consistently identified [Global Wind Organization basic safety training] of a sufficient number of workers as the number one workforce development priority,” the report said.

In addition, the state could support organizations interested in participating in the OSW supply chain by connecting them with and funding certificate training, such as OSHA and Lean Six Sigma.

Current maritime workers also can fill specific workforce needs if they receive specialized training, but the report said recruiting in that sector will be a challenge. Members of the fishing industry, for example, can be adversarial, and navigation near project infrastructure requires more precision than other maritime work.

Those issues, however, are not insurmountable, the report said. The state can improve messaging around the economic opportunities for maritime workers and continue funding professional programs, such as the Fishing Partnership Support Services and Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Development Program. Additional investment from the state in virtual reality technologies also will help the industry ensure OSW supply organizations can provide technical training for their products.

Education

Massachusetts has relevant vocational and higher education infrastructure that would allow the OSW industry to communicate job opportunities and connect with potential workers.

Filling construction and trade workforce gaps could be accomplished through early engagement in vocational-technical high schools in the state, according to the report.

“OSW stakeholders expressed that early exposure to the industry is key in physically and mentally preparing workers to endure water conditions,” the report said.

Existing higher education programs in the state also will support professionals interested in transitioning their skill sets to OSW.

“Initiatives like the development of a graduate certificate at [University of Massachusetts] (UMass) Amherst and OSW curricular and extracurricular development at UMass Lowell should continue to be supported and advertised,” the report said.

A partnership of Massachusetts academic institutions, called POWER US-MA, would benefit from state support to further its existing collaborations. The group lacks the resources for expansion, the report said, adding that its active research network and vision to expand “provides a valuable opportunity to the workforce development space.”

Equity

Removing barriers to entering the OSW workforce for people who have been unemployed long term will help the state create equitable job opportunities. People out of work for the longest in the state, according to the report, are primarily ethnic and racial minorities in lower-income households and communities.

A review based on state census tracts identified 28 towns that would benefit from focused workforce training and development opportunities. These “priority communities” meet key indicators for economic, demographic, social and housing criteria. All the towns meet the state’s definition of an environmental justice population, which includes an annual median household income that is no more than 65% of the statewide median household income.

Many potential workers in the priority communities “suffer from the trauma of poverty and may experience food insecurity, housing insecurity, transportation insecurity or substance abuse,” the report said. A pre-training program would help the individuals overcome those barriers to workforce entry.

State investments in priority communities could include transportation and housing support and pre-apprenticeship programs that recruit women, veterans and minorities.

Collaboration

The Massachusetts OSW sector does not exist in a bubble, and the state’s efforts to build a workforce to support the sector should acknowledge the programs and initiatives of other states in the region.

Through collaboration in the Northeast, the report said, the states will avoid duplicating their training efforts.

Developers want to secure a trusted workforce that can be used in projects throughout the region, the report said.

Some OSW occupations may be competitive geographically. Massachusetts, for example, could provide maritime workers, engineers, marine scientists, and industry professionals for projects in other states, according to the report. But to benefit from those synergies, the Northeast should create a centralized organization for OSW workforce development strategies, the report said.

Posted on

FERC’s Dodge Steps down as OER Head

Andy Dodge has left his position as director of FERC’s Office of Electric Reliability (OER), Chairman Richard Glick said at the commission’s open meeting Thursday. David Ortiz, who has served as the office’s deputy director for the past five years, has stepped in as acting director.

“I believe [these changes] will strengthen our bench to address growing threats to the reliability of the grid,” Glick said. “I want to thank Andy for his service in leading OER and thank David for agreeing to take on this added responsibility.”

OER oversees the development and review of reliability and security standards, as well as utilities’ compliance with those standards. It also leads or joins periodic reviews of the ERO Enterprise and utilities; leads or joins analysis and investigations of complaints, blackouts, near-misses or other issues with the bulk power system to determine whether standards were violated and if they are adequate for their purpose; and oversees NERC’s regular reliability assessments to identify constraints on the BPS. Joseph McClelland, the office’s inaugural director, now heads OESI.

Ortiz became deputy director of OER in April 2016 following a three-year stint as deputy assistant secretary for energy infrastructure modeling and analysis at the Department of Energy. He previously served as acting OER director for about nine months in 2018 after the departure of the previous director, Michael Bardee, stepping back when Dodge took over the same year.

Posted on

FERC Removes Southern Co. Mitigation in SC

FERC on Thursday agreed to remove market mitigation measures for Southern Co. (NYSE:SO) in the Dominion Energy South Carolina balancing authority area, saying the utility meets the standards for market-based rate authority (ER10-2881-035, et al.).

The commission agreed to lift the mitigation because Southern had no indicative screen failures in the region, where it holds a market share of 6.6 to 13%.

The commission also approved Southern’s continued use of market-based rates in Duke Energy Florida (market share 2.9 to 9.3%), Duke Energy Carolinas (6.9 to 7.7%), Florida Power & Light (6.0 to 8.0%), PowerSouth (0 to 16.6%), Tennessee Valley Authority (2.1 to 3.5%), Seminole BAA (0 to 0.1%) and Florida Municipal Power Pool BAA (0 to 0.4%).

But the commission said Southern’s tailored mitigation — day-ahead and hour-ahead energy auctions — for the Southern BAA (41.7 to 51.9%), Jacksonville Electric Authority (17.1 to 21.4%), Santee Cooper (0 to 30.3%) and the city of Tallahassee (0 to 19.8%) must remain in place.

The commission said Southern failed the wholesale market share screen in the Southern, Jacksonville and Santee Cooper BAAs. Southern said that although it narrowly passed the screen for the Tallahassee BAA for the summer and fall seasons, it would “conservatively treat the [Tallahassee BAA] as having two screen failures.”

Other MBRA Approvals

In separate orders, the commission also approved MBRA and accepted updated market power analyses for Commonwealth Chesapeake Co., et al. (ER10-3078-005, et al.); Munnsville Wind Farm, et al. (ER10-2834-007 et al.); Talen Energy Marketing, et al. (ER15-2013-011, et al.); Homer City Generation (ER13-55-025); and Caithness Long Island and Moxie Freedom (ER20-2271, ER20-2755). Several of these orders had not been published as of press time.

Posted on

ISO-NE Planning Advisory Committee Briefs: Sept. 22, 2021

Pilot Study to Focus on Cape Cod OSW

ISO-NE is proposing a pilot study to analyze the potential curtailments experienced by new generation from the addition of offshore wind on Cape Cod, according to a presentation at the Planning Advisory Committee meeting Wednesday from Al McBride, the RTO’s director of transmission services and resource qualification.

The study’s purpose is to allow market participants to assess the impacts of proposed intermittent resources’ operating characteristics and availability criteria. However, the study will not result in changes to the interconnection standards or criteria. McBride said that if changes to the interconnection standards or criteria are warranted, ISO-NE can discuss them with the PAC and NEPOOL stakeholders after reviewing the results.

McBride added that by doing a pilot study, ISO-NE can look at the results more “narrowly” and “we can see what the reaction is and how folks want to take it from there.”

The scope of work will look at transmission constraints found in the first Cape Cod Resource Integration Study (CCRIS), OSW production, area load, solar development and curtailment analysis approach.

The CCRIS focused on adding new 345-kV transmission infrastructure between West Barnstable and Bourne. It identified that 1,200 MW of OSW, in addition to the 1,600 MW with completed system impact studies, could be interconnected on Cape Cod. However, N-1 and N-1-1 constraints were observed when more than 2,800 MW were added. In addition, transmission outages along the corridor from Cape Cod could also reduce transfer capability and cause curtailments.

Load on Cape Cod is seasonal. For most of the year, load is less than 300 MW and peak load is approximately 600 MW. McBride said that if a large amount of generation is connected to the cape, most of the injected power will flow away from it to the rest of the system. For example, if 2,800 MW of generation are running on the cape, and there is 300 MW of load, 2,500 MW will be exported out. McBride noted that the net export level would only increase with the addition of distributed solar generation.

McBride said the RTO hopes to have some preliminary results of the curtailment analysis before the end of the year.

Western and Central Mass. 2029 Study Update

Sarah Lamotte, ISO-NE assistant engineer in transmission planning, provided an update on the conclusion of the Western and Central Massachusetts (WCMA) 2029 study.

The 2029 WCMA needs assessment identified time-sensitive N-1 and N-1-1 voltage violations under peak load conditions along the 69-kV A-1 and B-2 line corridor between Vernon station in Vermont and Pratts Junction station in Massachusetts. For the WMCA solutions study, it was determined that National Grid’s asset condition projects, including the A-1 and B-2 line asset condition project, would be included in the cases before developing alternative solutions.

Lamotte said that the RTO reran an analysis to include the A-1 and B-2 project to examine the status of the criteria violations observed in the original needs assessment. The new analysis is referred to as the WCMA 2029 Needs Assessment Addendum. Out of the four asset condition projects, the A-1 and B-2 line was selected to be added to the addendum cases because the project has the greatest potential impact on the criteria violations observed in the initial needs assessment.

The updated testing showed that all of the criteria violations identified along the A-1 and B-2 line corridor were no longer observed. In addition, a short-circuit analysis was also performed, and no overburdened breakers were identified.

With no criteria violations observed in the addendum analysis, the need to study a solution disappears, according to Lamotte, which concludes the WCMA 2029 study effort.

ISO-NE will provide a 15-day comment-and-review period for stakeholders, and the final addendum will be posted next month.

Posted on

New Jersey Seeks to Lure Tourists with EV Chargers

New Jersey is launching a $4 million campaign to promote the availability of electric vehicle chargers and tourism to popular state landmarks by installing chargers on main traffic corridors and at tourist hotspots.

The plan, approved by the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU), aims to increase the number of chargers enough to reduce concerns among both out-of-state and domestic EV drivers that they could get stranded at their destination because there are no nearby chargers to fuel their vehicle for the return trip.

The installation of more chargers, and the promotion of their existence at state tourist areas such as the Jersey Shore and Atlantic City, could have the dual benefit of raising the profile of both EVs and state tourism locations, state officials said.

“By locating chargers at various tourism destinations, it would increase the visibility and availability of public charging, and also reduce the range anxiety,” Kelly Mooij, director of the BPU’s division of clean energy, told the board before the unanimous vote to approve the measure Sept. 14. The strategy, she said, would “encourage EV drivers to visit landmarks and locations considered areas of interest by the state Division of Travel and Tourism.”

The approved program provides an incentive of up to $2,000 for the installation of each eligible Level 2 charger (240 V) and an incentive equal to half the cost of the make-ready costs for such a charger, to a maximum of $5,000. The program would offer up to $75,000 for the wiring and make-ready costs for a fast charger, up to $75,000.

Municipalities, county or state government entities, and private  entities will be eligible for the incentives if they are in tourism areas recognized by the State Division of Travel and Tourism, or have jurisdiction over them. The proposed chargers should be dual-port or networked units that are either accessible to the public, or are “quasi-public,” such as accessible to guests of a motel or hotel.

Applicants could receive incentives for no more than six Level 2 chargers and two fast chargers per site, according to the program rules.

Jeffrey Vasser, executive director of the Division of Travel and Tourism, said that although his department did not originate the program, it could nevertheless improve the exposure of state landmarks and vacation sites.

“This is a great opportunity for tourism destinations throughout the state,” he said. “Hopefully, electric cars can be more and more abundant. If people can feel more comfortable and confident in coming here in their electric vehicles, I think long-term, that is a competitive advantage for us.”

Out-of-state Visitors

The program is designed to help the state meet goals set out by the EV Act, which Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law in January 2020. The act sets a state target of installing at least 1,000 Level 2 chargers by Dec. 31, 2025, and at least 400 fast chargers in 200 or more locations. The act also sets a goal of having 20% of the franchised overnight lodging establishments in the state equipped with charging infrastructure.

New Jersey has recently taken several measures to increase the number of chargers available in the state, believing that drivers are more likely to buy EVs if their range anxiety is diminished. They include enacting two laws that would make it easier to set up EV charging stations in the state and proposing new rules on the installation of new chargers, which are currently under discussion. (See NJ Cuts Permitting Obstacles for EV Charging Stations and NJ Looks to Boost EV Charger Numbers.)

Vasser said he did not know which tourist locations would, or should, be targeted in the new program.  About 84.6 million people visited the state in 2020, and the biggest attraction is the Jersey Shore, he said. Atlantic City was the top shore destination, followed by Cape May, his agency said.

Just over 50% of the visitors came for the day, and 48% were overnight visitors, according to the division’s annual report. About a quarter of all the money spent on tourist locations went on motel, hotel and other lodging spending, including casinos, the report said.

Most of the visitors to the state come by car, with the bulk of out-of-state tourists coming from New York and Pennsylvania, although Canada, New England and Virginia also sends tourists, he said. Given that the median range of 2020 EVs is about 250 miles, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, only visitors coming from just across the border from New Jersey could make it to the Jersey Shore and back without a charger at their coastal destination. Surf City, for example, located about halfway along the coast on the Jersey Shore, is about 100 miles from New York City and about 65 miles from Philadelphia, about the same distance as to Atlantic City from Philadelphia.

Maria Leonetti, marketing coordinator for the Montreal Beach Resort in Cape May, said the resort has had a charger since at least 2017, and she believes that more chargers around the area would prove to be an attraction for EV owners.

“More and more guests are traveling in electric vehicles, and they are happy when they learn that we have a designated spot for electric cars to plug into,” Leonetti said. “We do frequently receive calls from guests asking if we have a charging spot or to let us know they are bringing their electric vehicle, and to guarantee they will be able to charge their car.”

Highway Charger Numbers Increasing

New Jersey has 325 public fast-charging ports in 79 locations, meaning that 95% of the state is within 25 miles of a fast charger, according the Department of Environmental Protection’s “Drive Green” website. The state has 610 Level 2 ports and more than 300 public charging locations, according to the site. About 40 Level 2 chargers and fast chargers are in or around the Jersey Shore, according to the website.

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority said there are 76 EV chargers on the highway or in development. That’s up from 20 chargers in 2020, when Tesla reached an agreement with the authority that allowed the car manufacturer to install eight V3 superchargers at each of six service rest areas and others at two rest areas that already had chargers. Tesla also agreed to install infrastructure that could subsequently be used to install at least two dozen non-Tesla chargers by other entities.

The board order says that the incentive program would encourage public charging for destinations including “boardwalks, downtowns, historic sites and state parks.” Applications would be picked by a review committee convened for the project based on criteria that includes:

      • the applicant agrees that proper signage will be posted, and the charger’s presence will be publicized online;
      • locations that are part of larger tourism areas and near other tourism areas;
      • locations that would best serve the public because of their proximity to tourism areas connected by tourism corridor(s) or in a community location; and
      • locations that address gaps between chargers in the corridor or in a community.
Posted on

PJM TOs Respond to FERC Questions on Rate-base Network Upgrades

PJM transmission owners responded to FERC’s deficiency notice on their proposal to add network upgrades to rate base, arguing that the RTO’s tariff provides TOs with the “express authority” to make changes to any of the sections relating to transmission revenue requirements, cost allocation or cost recovery (ER21-2282).

In August, the commission directed the TOs to provide evidence backing up claims that their ability to raise capital is being threatened because they must absorb the risks of increasing transmission upgrades without earning returns on the assets. (See FERC Seeks Evidence in PJM TOs’ Bid to Rate-base Network Upgrades.)

The TOs asked FERC on June 30 to allow them the option to fund network upgrades and add them to their rate bases. Under PJM’s “participant funding” model approved in 2004, generators provide the capital for network upgrades, while the additional infrastructure is added to rate bases at zero cost, allowing TOs to recover only their operations and maintenance expenses from network transmission customers.

In their filing Monday, the TOs did not respond directly to the commission’s request for “evidence that investors have informed the PJM TOs that they hold concerns over future investments in the PJM TOs given the projected increase in network upgrades.”

Instead, the TOs noted that they filed their proposal under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act. “Thus, they do not need to demonstrate that the existing methodology absent the transmission owner’s option to fund network upgrades is unjust and unreasonable,” they wrote. “Instead, they need only show that the proposed revisions are just and reasonable.”

The TOs said when PJM was created as an independent system operator in 1997, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals “made very clear that absent a voluntary waiver,” the TOs retained all their rights under the FPA to make Section 205 filings “relating to rate design changes with respect to services provided by their own assets.” The TOs said the court “explicitly held” that the commission exceeded its jurisdiction when it attempted to “deprive utilities of their rights ‘to initiate rate design changes with respect to services provided by their own assets.’”

“The PJM transmission owners need not prove they retained the rights to file the proposed revisions; those rights are granted by statute,” the TOs said in their response. “To successfully challenge the PJM transmission owners’ rights to file the proposed revisions, protesters or the commission would have to show that the PJM transmission owners expressly waived those rights. There is, however, no evidence supporting such a showing.”

Several environmental groups, state regulators, generators, industrial customers and PJM’s Independent Market Monitor filed comments in July opposing the TOs’ proposal, alleging there’s no evidence the TOs are having trouble attracting capital. (See PJM Stakeholders Blast TOs’ Petition to Rate-base Network Upgrades.)

FERC staff asked the TOs to provide evidence that their return on equity (ROE) rates “do not currently account for the risks of owning and operating the transmission system with the network upgrade additions.”

The TOs said there is a “simple and straight-forward” reason the approved ROE rates do not account for the risks of owning and operating network upgrades, saying existing commission-approved ROE for transmission facilities “does not currently account for the risks of owning and operating network upgrades.”

“The commission-approved ROE for transmission rates is applied to the PJM transmission owner’s rate base, and that rate base does not currently include network upgrades,” the TOs said in their response. “Thus, the PJM transmissions owners do not earn a return or receive any compensation for owning and operating network upgrades.”

FERC asked whether the TOs’ ROE would decrease if they obtained the ability to put the upgrades in rate base.

The TOs said if the commission approves the proposed revisions, there would be “no reason or justification to reduce the commission-approved ROEs.” They said allowing for earnings on network upgrades would be compensation for owning and operating them and to “account for the risks of those facilities, which are separate from the risks addressed by the commission-approved ROE that the PJM transmission owners earn for their other transmission facilities on their system.”

The TOs said they have been forced to own and operate network upgrades “on a nonprofit basis.”

“In a market economy, no private business would voluntarily choose to pursue such a business model,” the TOs said. “While the PJM transmission owners are regulated entities, they are for profit entities, and therefore must be compensated for the service that they provide.”

The TOs said that gross plant for transmission assets has increased more than five-fold from $14.96 billion in 2004 to $77.72 billion in 2020. Over the same period, gross plant for network upgrades increased from $35 million to $1.31 billion, rising from 0.2% of the total gross plant to 1.7%.

FERC asked the TOs to describe the criteria they will use to determine whether to initially fund individual upgrades and the disclosures they would make about their decisions.

The TOs said they intend to fund network upgrades “if they have the capital budget and business flexibility to do so.” They said they have not yet developed “specific criteria” for the determination on whether to “exercise the transmission owner funding option.”

“Following the commission’s approval of their proposal, they will be in a better position to consider developing criteria to guide their decision-making process and to publicize those criteria,” the TOs said in their filing. “The criteria may include, for example, a minimum dollar threshold that would exclude network upgrades below a certain dollar amount; other potential criteria are still being considered.”

The TOs requested that FERC accept the proposed revisions “without hearing, modification or condition” and have an effective date of Aug. 30.

PJM’s TOs include American Electric Power (NASDAQ:AEP), Dominion Energy (NYSE:D), Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK), Exelon (NASDAQ:EXC), PPL (NYSE:PPL) and Public Service Enterprise Group (NYSE:PEG).

Posted on

Search Firm Chosen to Find New ERCOT Board Members

The ERCOT Board Selection Committee has engaged an executive search firm to scour the state for eight independent directors to sit on the grid operator’s reconstituted governing board, the Public Utility Commission of Texas said Monday.

The committee, comprising three members handpicked by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dade Phelan, chose Chicago-based Heidrick & Struggles to conduct the search. The firm, as directed by new legislation, will look to fill the vacancies with Texans with executive-level experience in finance, business, engineering (including electrical engineering), trading, risk management, law or electric market design.

The Texas legislature changed the board’s composition after the devastation of February’s winter storm left Texans outraged that the five previous independent directors lived out of state. (See ERCOT Chair, 4 Directors to Resign.)

The new independent directors will replace the market participant representatives who currently sit on the board and, along with the Office of Public Utility Counsel, have voting rights. The ERCOT CEO and PUC chairman will fill out the 11-person board.

Speaking Monday during the Gulf Coast Power Association’s virtual fall conference, interim ERCOT CEO Brad Jones said he knows of only two individuals who have been mentioned as potential board members.

“I would be thrilled to have both of them on the board. I’m very encouraged by those two names,” he said.

Buc-ees founder Arch “Beaver” Aplin is one of the ERCOT Board Selection Committee’s three members. | Mays Business SchoolThe board’s next meeting is Oct. 12, making it unlikely all eight independent directors will be seated by then.

State legislation signed into law earlier this year created a three-person, uncompensated selection committee. They are Arch “Beaver” Aplin, CEO of the Buc-ee’s convenience store chain and chairman of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission; G. Brint Ryan, former chairman of the University of North Texas System Board of Regents and CEO of a global tax consulting firm; and attorney Bill Jones, chairman emeritus of the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents.

Aplin, a backer of Republican interests, was named to the committee by Abbott. According to Transparency USA, a database that discloses money in state politics, Aplin has donated between $1,000 and $375,000 to 19 GOP political action committees since 2015, including just over $1 million to Abbott.

Posted on

SOO Green Seeks Relief from PJM Rule on External Capacity

The developer of a proposed 2,100-MW HVDC line escalated its fight with PJM on Tuesday, asking FERC to eliminate capacity rules it says are blocking its project from competing.

SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCo, which seeks to deliver wind generation from MISO to the PJM market, asked the commission to prevent PJM from applying to its project rules on external capacity resources delivered over AC lines.

“Applying PJM’s external capacity rules to external resources importing capacity via controllable high-voltage direct-current transmission lines creates unjust and unreasonable barriers to entry for such resources and constraints on interregional trade without providing offsetting reliability benefits,” SOO Green said. It asked the commission to approve an alternative structure that it said would meet PJM’s reliability needs and align the RTO’s tariff with existing FERC-approved constructs for capacity imports via HVDC facilities in ISO-NE and NYISO.

“AC transmission flows are free-flowing, allowing power to flow along the path of least resistance, or impedance. In contrast, HVDC transmission facilities are fully controllable and can be directly dispatched: Power only flows on an HVDC transmission facility when operators dispatch the converter stations at either end of the line. This fundamental technological difference between AC and HVDC transmission — and the associated underlying operational distinctions — renders PJM’s external capacity rules unnecessary,” the complaint said.

PJM established capacity import limits to prevent excess congestion but exempted pseudo-tied generators over which  it has direct dispatch control.

“PJM’s external capacity rules, while found reasonable for external resources flowing across the uncontrolled AC interface, were not designed for controllable interregional HVDC transmission facilities,” SOO Green said. “The commission recognized, at the time it approved the external capacity rules, the incompatibility between the external capacity rules and capacity imported over an HVDC line; however, it has not yet been clearly presented with the issue of external capacity imports via a controllable HVDC transmission facility in PJM until this filing.”

The developer said ISO-NE and NYISO have used controllable interregional HVDC transmission lines reliably for years. “Such lines can likewise satisfy PJM’s reliability and resource adequacy needs.”

SOO Green says 2,100 MW delivered across the free-flowing AC system (top) can strain the grid but that a new 2,100-MW HVDC tie line (bottom) would reduce congestion. | SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCoCapacity sold into PJM would be backed by a set of generating units within MISO that have firm transmission service to SOO Green’s withdrawal point and firm transmission service across SOO Green to its injection point.

SOO Green said PJM would not need to control individual external generators directly to manage power flows across the HVDC transmission facility. “Instead, PJM would issue dispatch instructions to the HVDC converter station — located within and directly connected to PJM — to schedule power flows,” it said. “Given PJM’s direct dispatch control of power flows across HVDC transmission facilities, PJM and MISO do not need to coordinate generator redispatch, as required for pseudo-tied generators delivering across the AC network, to manage congestion across their shared interface.”

SOO Green said an analysis conducted for it indicated that its project would also improve intraregional power transfer capability within MISO under normal operating conditions. “By reducing congestion, SOO Green will enable the reliable delivery of 2,100 MW of supply from multiple MISO subregions to the project’s interconnection point of withdrawal without requiring major interconnection upgrades,” it said.

Tuesday’s complaint opened a new chapter in SOO Green’s efforts since late 2019 to enter the PJM capacity market. In May 2020, PJM stakeholders approved the creation of the HVDC Senior Task Force at the developer’s request. But after four task force meetings from July to October 2020, SOO Green said it and the RTO had reached a “stalemate” because PJM staff were unwilling to consider alternatives to the pseudo-tie construct for external capacity resources delivered via HVDC.

In June, SOO Green filed a complaint alleging that PJM’s tariff and Operating Agreement are unjust and unreasonable because the RTO requires merchant transmission facilities to complete a “profoundly delayed generation interconnection process” for studies and integration into the grid (EL21-85). (See SOO Green Seeks Participation in PJM RTEP Process.) That complaint is still pending.

Asked for comment on the new complaint, PJM told RTO Insider that SOO Green “was afforded extensive opportunities to present its proposal to PJM and its stakeholders. PJM and many stakeholders noted the issues associated with the SOO Green proposal, which PJM will enumerate in its response.”

Posted on

GAO Pushes Agencies for Action on Resilience

In a report released on Monday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) called out federal agencies for dragging their feet on measures intended to improve the resilience of the U.S. electric grid.

The Electricity Grid Resilience report draws on previous GAO publications to run down the biggest threats to the resilience of the bulk electric system, citing Presidential Policy Directive 21, which was issued in February 2013 and defines resilience as “the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions.” In the report, GAO also chastises other federal groups — mainly FERC and the Department of Energy (DOE) — for failing to follow through on GAO’s previous recommendations.

“The nation’s grid … faces risks from events that can damage electrical infrastructure … and communications systems, resulting in power outages [that] can threaten the nation’s economic and national security,” the authors wrote. However, while “agencies have implemented several of GAO’s recommendations for improving electricity grid resilience,” many “that represent key opportunities to mitigate risks” remain to be implemented.

The report identifies three main areas of risk to the grid warned about in previous GAO briefs. First is extreme weather and climate change, with February’s severe cold — which resulted in outages for millions of customers in Texas — receiving prominent billing along with hurricanes Irma and Maria, which hit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2017. Referring to its own previous studies, GAO projected “more frequent and intense” storms that could “affect electricity generation, transmission and distribution” as a result of climate change.

Cyberattacks are another risk, with GAO cautioning that generation, transmission and distribution systems are all “increasingly connected” to the internet, creating various opportunities for hackers. A cyber intrusion could attack the grid directly, as in the case of a 2019 event that disrupted communication software for a utility serving parts of the Western U.S., or it could “facilitate a physical attack” by disabling security systems for vital infrastructure.

The report also warns that electromagnetic events, whether resulting from natural phenomena or induced artificially, present a danger for which the U.S. is largely unprepared. Along with disrupting computers and electronics, these events can “cause significant damage to critical electric infrastructure, such as transformers.” The 1989 solar storm that caused the collapse of the Hydro-Quebec grid is one example of this danger.

Previous Suggestions Not Taken 

Federal agencies have acted on some of these items — for instance, FERC ordered NERC to develop reliability standards relating to geomagnetic disturbances in 2013, and GAO noted that the Department of Homeland Security appeared to have acted on its 2016 recommendation to “designate roles and responsibilities … for addressing electromagnetic risks.” (See FERC Orders Rules on Geomagnetic Disturbances.)

But the report found that many more of its recommendations have not yet been followed. Under the extreme weather and climate change category, GAO repeated previous calls for DOE to develop a “department-wide strategy” to enhance the grid’s resilience to climate change and to create a plan for the development of resilience-planning tools, as well as for FERC to “better manage climate-related risks to the grid by identifying, assessing and planning” for them.

For cybersecurity, GAO chided DOE for not yet finishing its part of the federal cybersecurity strategy as GAO recommended in 2019. The organization also reiterated calls for FERC to consider further changes to its cybersecurity standards and “evaluate the potential risks to the grid from a coordinated attack on geographically distributed targets” in order to ensure that “the approved threshold for mandatory compliance adequately responds to that risk.”

Posted on

NJ Wind Port Opening Slated for Early 2024

New Jersey is targeting a winter 2023-2024 completion date for the first phase of its South Jersey offshore wind port, manufacturing and marshaling hub, which it hopes will give the state a first-mover advantage in the race to provide a centralized East Coast supply chain and operations center for the industry.

State officials outlined their plans for the New Jersey Wind Port on Friday at a meeting of the New Jersey Alliance For Action, which works to promote local infrastructure construction. The audience of 130 people included construction company executives, engineers and consultants, and union representatives, many of whom said they hope to get business from the offshore wind sector.

Speakers at the event said the wind port under development and a monopile fabrication facility already in construction would be sources of contracts and urged those present to consider bidding for work on both projects.

But, Tim Sullivan, CEO of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJ EDA), acknowledged that other states are moving in the same direction.

“There’s a real competition,” Sullivan said. “Some of you who [work in] multiple states know that. New York and Virginia and Maryland; Delaware, Massachusetts, in particular; Connecticut, Rhode Island ― there’s a battle on. Who is going to be leader of the pack here?”

He and other speakers, said that New Jersey is well positioned to succeed due, in part, to the vigorous support and investment the offshore wind sector and the port have received from Gov. Phil Murphy and the legislature. Sullivan called the port “the first purpose-built offshore wind port for marshalling and manufacturing in America, period.”

New Jersey has committed $250 million to the first phase of the wind port, which is expected to cost about $400 million, and broke ground on the project on Sept. 9. The state has also signed a 78-year lease on the property with owner PSEG. (See: NJ Breaks Ground on Offshore Wind Hub.)

“There’s a real opportunity here to differentiate ourselves and position ourselves to be the capital of American offshore wind,” Sullivan said.

Location, Location and No Bridges

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has awarded three offshore wind projects in two solicitations: the 1,100-MW Ocean Wind 1 and 1,148-MW Ocean Wind 2 projects, both developed by Ørsted; and the 1,510-MW Atlantic Shores project, a joint venture between EDF Renewables North America and Shell New Energies US. The BPU is planning to hold three more solicitations over the next five years to help the state reach its target of deploying 7,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035. (See: NJ Awards Two Offshore Wind Projects.)

New Jersey’s advantages include the wind port’s location on the mid-Atlantic coast, which means that 50% of the offshore wind projects planned in the U.S. are “within one day’s steam,” according to Sullivan’s presentation at the meeting. Sited on the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek, the port’s location will allow vessels to reach the offshore wind sites without passing below any bridge spans, a key benefit because the turbines can be as high as the Washington Monument and are shipped to their destination upright, Sullivan said.

The New Jersey port also will benefit from the swift progress on the construction of a monopile factory in the nearby Port of Paulsboro, state officials said. The $250 million facility will provide monopiles — the tubes driven into the ocean floor for the turbines — for Ocean Wind 1 and 2, and Atlantic Shores.

It broke ground in April, and construction of the first of five manufacturing buildings is underway and expected to be completed in early 2022, with a goal of completing 100 monopiles a year, said Andy Saporito, CEO of the South Jersey Port Corporation. The manufacture of monopiles is expected to begin in 2023, and the entire project is slated to be completed in 2024, according to corporation’s website.  

Jonathan Kennedy, the EDA’s managing director for infrastructure, said that with 35 GW of “committed and planned offshore wind from Maine to South Carolina,” New Jersey can expect to secure a chunk of that business well into the future. Those projects could total up to 3,000 turbines that will need to be built, he said.

“I think we have first-mover advantage with the wind port,” he said. “We’ve already got runs on the board with Paulsboro, the first monopile facility in the U.S.,” said Kennedy, a native of England, using a British sporting term that means one team already has an advantage.

Sullivan said the wind port and Paulsboro are two of five locations that the state is looking to develop to serve the offshore wind industry. The others are the Port of New York and New Jersey in the New York Harbor, an operations and maintenance facility in Atlantic City and a facility in Cape May.   

Help Wanted

Attendees at the event included a dozen construction companies, among them AECOM Tishman, contract manager for the wind port, and J. Fletcher Creamer & Sons, which also is doing work on the project. Several engineering firms and unions also attended the meeting, including the International Longshoremen’s Association, the Construction & General Laborers’ Union, Local 172 of South Jersey, the Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68.

The United Building Trades Council of Southern New Jersey AFL-CIO signed an agreement with AECOM Tishman stating that union labor would be used for the wind port, and Atlantic Shores in February said it had an agreement to use union labor in the construction and operation of its offshore wind farm. 

Gareth C. Middleton, senior vice president for AECOM Tishman, said the wind port will be built in two phases. The first will include channel dredging and the construction of at least two vessel berths, along with 30 acres of marshalling space, a 24-acre area for marshalling and manufacturing, and a 35-acre site for additional manufacturing, he said. The first phase will cost about $400 million, and the second phase, which will unfold between 2024 and 2026, could expand the hub’s footprint to 200 acres, adding further space for marshaling and manufacturing, Sullivan said.

Sullivan said that the EDA has created an Offshore Wind Supply Chain Registry of companies interested in providing services to the sector.

“I would highly encourage you, if you are in that category, if you know folks who are in that category of activity, please sign up to the spreadsheet, because it’s really important,” he said. “This is happening. This is real; this is no longer on the drawing board. This is a real project that is now happening.”