Search
`
November 27, 2024

Posted on

BPA Execs Lay out Markets+ Benefits, Risks, Reasons

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Bonneville Power Administration’s biggest risks in joining SPP’s Markets+ come down to footprint size and the limited transmission connectivity between the Northwest and Southwest entities most inclined to join the market, agency executives said during a Nov. 4 press briefing. 

BPA held the briefing immediately after a sometimes-contentious meeting where agency officials updated stakeholders on the day-ahead market decision process and discussed results from a new production cost model study estimating the agency’s potential economic benefits from participating in either Markets+ or CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). (See related story, Rising Tensions Evident at BPA Day-ahead Markets Workshop.) 

The study, prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), found that BPA stands to realize the greatest savings in a single West-wide day-ahead market and would earn significantly more financial benefits from EDAM than from Markets+ under the most likely scenario reflecting the commitments a handful of key utilities have already made to joining the CAISO-run market. 

Despite those findings, BPA has said it plans to hold fast to its staff recommendation that the agency choose Markets+ for more qualitative reasons, such as its independent governance from the get-go and the market design established under that governance. (See BPA Sticks to Markets+ Leaning Despite Study Showing EDAM Benefits.) 

“I think footprint is a fair issue [for risk in Markets+], especially when you look at production cost model studies,” Rachel Dibble, BPA vice president of bulk power marketing, said during the briefing. “That’s really where those [economic benefits] numbers come from … the size of the footprint.” 

Dibble and acting BPA CIO Nita Zimmerman agreed that transmission connectivity between the two prospective Markets+ areas was another key point of risk for potential participants. 

“It really impacts the ability for power to flow across the region,” Dibble said. 

Dibble noted there is some connectivity between the Northwest and Southwest, but it’s “not particularly robust,” especially if NV Energy joins EDAM, a near certainty after the utility in May announced its intention to do so. (See NV Energy to Join CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market.) 

“More connectivity would be better, because it does give the chance to do more optimization across the two [regions], but there is some transmission” between them, she said. 

“Flow will also go through California on California transmission as well,” Dibble added. “That’s still part of the market, because that transmission … also links the Northwest to the Southwest.”

Libby Kirby, BPA | © RTO Insider LLC 

Libby Kirby, BPA’s market initiatives policy lead, said the agency has few concerns about passing FERC market power screens under a scenario in which the two major parts of Markets+ are held together by limited transmission. 

“One piece of the market design in Markets+ includes a ‘conduct and impact’ test,” Kirby said. “So it’s not just, ‘Is there the potential for market power?’ It’s like, ‘Are you actually impacting the price?’ So there’s kind of some additional steps that they check before they actually assess you for market power.” 

During the workshop, some stakeholders pointed to the financial risk of BPA paying its $25 million share to fund the Phase 2 implementation phase of Markets+ if it later decides not to join the market, given that the funding is expected to be paid through future transactions in the market. Agency officials said the expense is worth ensuring the West has two viable day-ahead market options. 

During the briefing, Dibble said she didn’t yet know when the $25 million would come due if BPA declined to join Markets+ and that such details would be worked out in the Phase 2 contract. 

‘A Real Option’

Some workshop participants also expressed concern about BPA’s timeline for issuing a decision on its market choice, urging the agency to push back its May 2025 target to allow more time for legislative developments to play out around the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative.  

Asked about the impact on the BPA decision timeline of FERC potentially issuing a second deficient letter on the Markets+ tariff, Dibble said: “It’s something we would have to play by ear. It depends on what’s in it, [and] how quickly it could be answered. But I think ultimately, until we have a FERC-approved market, we don’t have a market to join.” 

Dibble pointed out that other Western entities aren’t waiting on BPA to make their market decisions. “And what concerns us is that Bonneville just gets pulled into whatever everyone else chooses, instead of it being a proactive choice that we are making based on what’s best for our customers,” she said. 

“I don’t believe that creating a West-wide market is something that is Bonneville’s responsibility,” she added, reiterating a point BPA representatives have made throughout the agency’s decision process. 

Nita Zimmerman, BPA | © RTO Insider LLC 

BPA recognizes the impact of its decision and wishes “no harm” to others in the Western Interconnection, Dibble said, “but our obligation and our fiduciary responsibility is to the people of the Pacific Northwest, and our decision will be what is best for the people of the Pacific Northwest and the subset of our preference customers that we have special obligations to.” 

The most telling comments about BPA’s firmness on its Markets+ leaning came in response to a question about whether the agency will be looking for signals from the California legislature next year around Pathways’ “Step 2” proposal to implement a more independent governance framework for CAISO’s Western markets. 

Dibble said that after a decade of waiting for California to grant CAISO more independence, BPA “decided to go out and work with the region and another market operator to create what we wanted.” 

“So to now say, ‘OK, we know what option you have out there that satisfies your needs, but now tell us what your bare minimum is that California could do’ — we’re not going negotiate against ourselves that way,” she said. “We have an option that’s no longer hypothetical. It is a real option that has a real independent market governance structure that satisfies us, and that’s what we’re measuring everything else against.” 

Posted on

Duke Reports on Hurricanes’ Impact, SMR Plans in Q3 Earnings

Duke Energy on Nov. 7 reported third-quarter earnings of $1.226 billion ($1.60/share), a dip of about 15% from the same period in 2023, as results were impacted by one of the biggest hurricane seasons to hit its territory in memory.

“I am proud of the remarkable response from our employees and utility partners to a historic storm season, including three consecutive hurricanes,” Duke CEO Lynn Good said in a statement. “Our team’s commitment to our customers was unwavering as they worked around the clock to restore 5.5 million outages as quickly and safely as possible and rebuilt large portions of our system in a matter of days.”

Duke’s multiple utility territories were hit by hurricanes Debby, Helene and Milton this season, and it is expected to spend $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion on restoration in the Carolinas and Florida.

The costs impacted third-quarter earnings, but the work continues in the fourth quarter. Most of those costs will be deferred for future recovery in regulatory assets on the condensed, consolidated balance sheets or related to capital projects, the company said.

“My heart goes out to all of those who are directly impacted by these catastrophic storms, especially those who lost loved ones, homes or businesses,” Good said on a quarterly call with analysts.

The firm’s workforce had to repair its system while, in many cases, dealing with the impacts from the storms in their personal lives, she added.

“Our field teams rose to the challenge, working around the clock to restore outages as safely and quickly as possible,” Good said. “And our customer care representatives, corporate responders, community relations managers and state president offices worked tirelessly to keep customers and policymakers informed.”

Helene’s impact on Asheville, N.C., was unlike anything Duke has dealt with before, company President Harry Sideris said on the call.

“Over the three hurricanes, we assembled more than 20,000 resources from across the U.S. and Canada and restored approximately 5.5 million outages in some of the harshest conditions,” Sideris said.

Debby hit in August, knocking out power to 700,000 customers in Florida and North Carolina, though most were restored within a day, he added.

Helene hit both states a month later and impacted every one of the company’s territories, with the hardest hit areas in western North Carolina, upstate South Carolina and Florida’s barrier islands, Sideris said.

“The storm brought record-breaking rainfall and flooding, created landslides, and washed out roads and towns,” he added. In total, Helene led to approximately 3.5 million outages.

Then, as work to repair from Helene was continuing, a week later, Milton hit Florida and knocked out power to an additional 1 million customers there.

“Our success in responding to storms of this magnitude is due to our strategic preparation ahead of the storms, near constant communication with customers and stakeholders, and most importantly, the tireless work of our employees and utility partners,” Sideris said.

Meanwhile, Duke has been in the early planning stages of considering small modular reactors (SMRs), with Sideris saying some of its large customers are interested in using the technology to provide clean power for their operations.

“But any decision as we move forward, we’ll have to address three key items,” Sideris said. “The first one is the first-of-its-kind risk that exists, really, around the maturity of the technology [and] the supply chain. The second item is cost overrun protection, to protect our investors and our customers. And then our third is to make sure that we can protect our balance sheet [when] making these investments.”

Good also commented on the biggest story of the week when she congratulated President-elect Donald Trump for his victory.

“I think the U.S. economy will be a focus and a priority of his, and our industry plays an incredibly important role,” Good said. “So, as we look at what we’re doing here in the Carolinas and also Indiana and Florida, we are putting infrastructure in place in order to serve economic development and believe there are lots of opportunities to work together.”

Posted on

Rhode Island Voters Approve Funding for OSW Port Infrastructure

Rhode Island voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot proposal Nov. 5 to dedicate $53 million in bonds to several environmental infrastructure projects, including $15 million for the Port of Davisville, which is transforming into an offshore wind staging point. 

The R.I. Ports Coalition, a maritime industry advocacy group that campaigned for the proposal, said the funding “will finance new berthing space, … prepare the port to serve as a key offshore wind hub for the North Atlantic and play a critical role in delivering clean energy to homes across the Northeast.” 

The Port of Davisville, Rhode Island’s only public port, is close to the large offshore wind lease area southeast of the state, which hosts the operating South Fork Wind facility, the under-construction Vineyard Wind and Revolution Wind projects, and several other proposed projects. 

“These infrastructure development projects will create additional jobs, position [the Quonset Business Park] to serve as a critical offshore wind hub in the North Atlantic, support Rhode Island’s clean energy goals and maintain the port’s position as one of the nation’s top auto importers,” the coalition said in a press release. 

In 2023, the port hosted 57 offshore wind vessels after opening “a specialized harbor” intended to accommodate smaller vessels. Quonset Development Corp. (QDC), which oversees the port, is hoping to scale up this operation in the coming years. 

“Given its proximity to the offshore wind leasing areas, the Port of Davisville is the ideal location for berthing offshore wind vessels, and with additional wind farms finalizing permitting, the port will continue to grow as a central location for marine logistics and operations,” QDC wrote in its 2023 annual report. 

QDC has outlined plans for a new pier to “offer specialized berthing spaces to accommodate a variety of offshore wind vessels and cargoes,” along with new support docks and a boat ramp to “accommodate smaller boats and the short-term docking needs of small businesses, emerging companies and research and development organizations.” 

However, the annual report identified a $40 million funding gap in the port’s master plan; the approved state bond will help address this need. 

The green bond approval will also give $2 million to restore coastal habitats to help improve climate resilience, $10 million to the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank for municipal resilience, $5 million to preserve working agricultural lands, $5 million to clean former brownfield sites and $3 million to preserve open space.

Posted on

MISO Prelim Regional Resource Assessment Calls for 343 GW by 2043

CARMEL, Ind. — MISO members will likely have to add 343 GW of installed capacity by 2043 to meet state policy goals while maintaining resource adequacy, the RTO said in preliminary results from its annual Regional Resource Assessment.

Of that 343 GW, members have already planned to add 163 GW in installed capacity. According to its early results, MISO said that leaves members filling in an additional 180 GW over the next 20 years.

“Achieving 343 GW of additional installed capacity by 2043 would require an average installation of 17 GW per year over the next 20 years to achieve, which is more than 3.5 times greater than the recent installation rate,” MISO Director of Strategic Initiatives and Assessments Jordan Bakke told the Resource Adequacy Subcommittee on Nov. 6.

From 2020 through 2022, MISO experienced an average 4.7 GW/year worth of installed capacity additions. Between 2029 and 2043, MISO foresees 27 GW in thermal retirements and 11 GW in thermal additions based on its members’ plans.

Bakke said that by 2043, MISO also estimates that wind and solar would account for 62% of installed capacity and have the potential to reach 87% of annual energy served.

“The purpose is not to speculate on the resource buildout but report back on what our members are planning,” Bakke said of MISO’s assessment.

MISO remains adamant that in 20 years’ time, the loss-of-load risk will move away from afternoon summer hours to concentrate in early mornings in winter. MISO also said systemwide ramp-up needs will pick up, with peak ramping needs occurring outside of summer and in evening, rather than morning, hours.

The number of additional megawatts MISO is signaling a need for is up sharply from 2022, when its assessment found members likely needed to add 200 GW of new installed capacity by 2041. (See MISO: 200 GW in New Capacity Necessary by 2041.)

In November 2023, a condensed version of the assessment also observed that retirement announcements are trouncing stated capacity additions. The grid operator said that beyond what members are planning, the footprint likely needs an additional 13 GW of accredited (not installed) capacity by 2027, 27 GW by 2032 and 34 GW by 2042 to fulfill demand. (See MISO Continues to Find Mounting Retirements, Inadequate New Capacity in Abridged Resource Assessment.)

MISO will hold a dedicated stakeholder workshop Dec. 18 to go over final results of the assessment.

Posted on

AEP CEO: Transmission Provides Foundation for Growth

Newly minted American Electric Power CEO Bill Fehrman held his first earnings call with financial analysts Nov. 6, promising to “embrace large load opportunities,” use expertise in 765-kV transmission and deliver more positive regulatory outcomes. 

“I’m honored to join a leader like AEP at a pivotal time for both the organization and our industry,” Fehrman said during the call. “I need to establish a record of delivering on promises to you while demonstrating goodwill to our regulators and customers.” 

AEP CEO Bill Fehrman | AEP

Since replacing Julie Sloat as CEO in August, Fehrman said he has met with staff and stakeholders — including four governors and more than 30 regulators and legislators — across AEP’s 11-state footprint for “robust” discussions about critical initiatives. (See AEP Selects Industry Veteran as Next CEO.) 

He said those exchanges have helped shape AEP’s vision for the future. 

“AEP has built a strong foundation for growth,” Fehrman said, alluding to a transmission system that represents 55% of the company’s total revenue stream. “However, we can improve reliability, streamline costs, use technology better and put power in the hands of local leaders to build financially strong utilities in our communities.” 

That will include what he called an “optimization exercise” as the company “retools personnel and processes” over the coming months.  

“The bottom line here is we have made progress transforming a business over the past three months, but we have significantly more wood to chop,” Fehrman said. 

Still, AEP has increased its five-year capital plan to $54 billion, all allocated to its regulated businesses for reliability purposes and to meet demand growth. It has allocated 63% of that capital to wires functions and 26% to new generation, including renewables. The company said it expects rates to go up less than 3% annually through 2029. 

The Columbus, Ohio-based company is part of a joint venture with FirstEnergy and Dominion Energy that is pursuing several multistate extra-high-voltage transmission projects in PJM. AEP is also eyeing potential 765-kV projects in ERCOT, PJM and SPP. 

“We have a big opportunity in ERCOT around 765[-kV] down there in the event that they decide to go that way. … [There is] a significant opportunity on the various backbone growth areas for Texas that just alone is a good $4 [billion] or $5 billion of opportunity potential on the 765[-kV] front,” Fehrman said. “The fact that AEP is essentially the only U.S. company that knows how to build and operate 765[-kV] gives us a strong competitive advantage.” 

AEP also recently filed a settlement agreement with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to help insulate customers from the cost risk of building infrastructure to connect data centers. It has filed similar large-load modifications in three other states and a complaint with FERC related to co-located load arrangements. (See AEP Ohio Proposes Revised Data Center Tariff.) 

“Load growth from data center demand has the potential to benefit all stakeholders, including investors, customers and local communities, but only with fair and proper cost allocation,” Fehrman said. “We don’t have an issue with data centers looking to use nuclear power plants as an energy source. But we do have an issue when they use the transmission system and try not to pay for it. That’s a problem for us because that cost gets shifted to other customers.” 

Fehrman did not comment on AEP’s discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over the Ohio nuclear bribery scandal, in which FirstEnergy was found to have paid state legislators to subsidize its plants. The SEC has twice subpoenaed AEP since 2021, but the company and its officials have not been criminally charged. Although the company has steadfastly said it does not believe it was involved in any “wrongful conduct,” it has set aside $19 million as a contingency. (See Feds: FE Paid $61M in Bribes to Win Nuke Subsidy.) 

AEP reported third-quarter earnings of $959.6 million ($1.80/share). That was a slight improvement from the same period a year ago, when earnings came in at $953.7 million ($1.83/share). 

The company’s share price fell to $96.25 on Nov. 6 on a down day for the S&P 500 Utilities index, dropping just over 4% from its $100.40 close Nov. 5. AEP’s stock rebounded slightly Nov. 7 and closed up 8 cents. 

Posted on

Rising Tensions Evident at BPA Day-ahead Markets Workshop

PORTLAND, Ore. — A largely polite discussion at the Bonneville Power Administration’s Nov. 4 day-ahead market participation workshop ended on a testy note as critics of a BPA staff recommendation that the agency join SPP’s Markets+ urged staff to rethink their position and consider once again delaying a decision beyond May 2025.

The workshop was the first BPA has held since announcing in August that it would postpone its final decision — originally scheduled for this month — into next year, with a draft decision targeted for March.

It was also the first such meeting since the executive leading the day-ahead markets effort, former Director of Market Initiatives Russ Mantifel, resigned on short notice in October. (See BPA Markets+ Support Intact Despite Exec’s Resignation, Agency Says.)

The discussion covered BPA’s intention to spend $25 million to fund Phase 2 of Markets+, the agency’s thoughts on the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative’s “Step 2” proposal and its reasons for delaying its decision.

But the key focus of the workshop was the recently released results of a production cost model study that Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) performed for BPA to estimate the comparative benefits of joining either Markets+ or CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) under various market footprint scenarios and tested under different sensitivities, such as conditions of low hydro or stressed load.

The study, which supplements the Western Markets Exploratory Group (WMEG) study that E3 produced for BPA last year, found the agency would gain significantly more financial benefits from participating in EDAM rather than Markets+, with the largest projected take in a single, West-wide market: $251 million in savings in 2026 — compared with a “Business as Usual” (BAU) case — declining to $147 million in 2035.

But in an Oct. 31 press release announcing the study results, BPA made clear the findings would not shift its leaning in favor of the SPP market, although they would still factor into its final decision. (See BPA Sticks to Markets+ Leaning Despite Study Showing EDAM Benefits.)

BPA officials reemphasized that view during the Nov. 4 workshop, at which two of the study’s authors, E3’s Jack Moore and Yuchi Sun, detailed the study’s structure, methodology and results.

Moore reiterated a point that E3’s Arne Olson made a year ago with the release of BPA’s original WMEG study: that the supplemental study, with its focus on production costs, was not designed to capture potential savings from lower capacity needs based on resource and load diversity, the ability to procure resources over a wider geographic area and coordinated regional transmission planning.

“It is useful to note that those investment savings [and] investment impacts can be significant and sometimes larger even than production cost impact in the long run,” Moore said.

EDAM supporters in the Northwest — and elsewhere — have repeatedly argued that point when urging BPA to join a single Western market based on EDAM rather than on Markets+, the latter of which will inevitably split the region into two markets given the unlikelihood that California utilities would choose the SPP-run market and the number of utilities already lining up for CAISO’s platform.

E3’s Jack Moore and Yuchi Sun | © RTO Insider LLC 

But BPA officials at the workshop pointed to the importance of other factors not captured in the E3 study, some of which are qualitative and difficult to measure in dollars, such as the benefit of participating in a market with independent governance from the get-go.

Others are more quantitative, but still difficult to estimate in a study, such as the absence of scarcity pricing in the EDAM, market power mitigation practices, the impact of energy bid caps and the potential for CAISO — as both market operator and balancing authority participating in its own market — to “bias” operations in its own favor during stress events.

Sara Eaton, a BPA senior policy specialist, said the agency even questioned whether the supplemental study accurately reflects the financial impact from stressed grid events.

“We don’t see the pricing levels for scarcity events near the impact that we see them in in today’s world,” Eaton said. “That’s an impact that we’re not seeing reflected in the studies. Our exposure to those sorts of pricing levels don’t get incorporated into the cost” represented in the study.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

Representatives of the large number of Northwestern publicly owned utilities that have advocated for BPA to join Markets+ backed the agency’s approach of giving the supplemental study limited weighting in its decision.

“How certain are we that the analysis actually accurately represents what would happen?” Nicolas Garcia, policy director with the Washington Public Utility Districts Association (WPUDA), asked, noting the wide range of benefit estimates included in the study. “I do think we need to take [the findings] with a little bit of a grain of salt, and I would recommend perhaps using a few more zeros and a little less ones and fives, just because I think that even though that may be what the analysis came up with, the fact of the matter is that these things are a little bit uncertain.”

Michael Linn, director of market analytics at the Portland-based Public Power Council (PPC), said his group supported “broadening the conversation beyond the production cost studies.”

Linn said the E3 study is “clearly very valuable” and that E3’s work “shows directional benefits” of BPA’s participation in a day-ahead market. “But we also see that there’s considerable variability across those modeled outcomes.”

Both Linn and Garcia emphasized the importance of market factors that are “harder to quantify.”

Linn also reemphasized Eaton’s point about the unquantified cost of resource scarcity events.

“Every year there’s some sort of issue that is a $100 [million] to $200 million issue for everybody [and] involves reliability, and the market framework where Bonneville has an equitable say in the resolution of those policy choices needs to be highly prioritized, from PPC’s perspective,” Linn said.

Rachel Dibble, BPA | © RTO Insider LLC 

Garcia said the issue of governance should carry greater weight than a study showing EDAM would provide more economic benefits for BPA.

“I will say that my members, which represent about 20% of Washington’s load, very much want independent governance, even if it doesn’t come up with anything different in terms of value. We like democracy. We like independence,” he said.

Rachel Dibble, BPA vice president of bulk power marketing, said governance determines market design, which in turn determines who gains and loses under stressed grid conditions.

“When you have a governance model that has a particular responsibility to one market participant, that’s reflected in the market design, and it’s reflected in the way that benefits and costs are allocated,” Dibble said, pointing to CAISO’s policy of curtailing wheel-throughs of “low-priority” energy transfers through its balancing area during emergency conditions, which sparked the ire of Arizona utilities during stressed grid events in the summer of 2020.

Sidney Villanueva, an attorney representing Avangrid Renewables, asked for more specificity on how governance affects market design.

Dibble explained how all Markets+ participants have voting rights and are responsible for designing the market and writing its protocols, which “really encourages collaboration.”

“So, we have differently situated entities that then can come to the table, and there is a lot of time spent in the work groups hashing through all of these issues and trying to get to consensus and through a collaborative process to find a solution that works for everyone,” she said.

‘Head-scratcher’

Henry Tilghman, a consultant representing the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition — an EDAM supporter — said BPA will have to contend with CAISO’s market design regardless of whether it joins the EDAM and asked how joining Markets+ will “have any impact” on the issues the agency is concerned about.

“It’s not that we’re thinking that the Markets+ governance structure is going to resolve systemic issues in California, but why would we export that governance structure to a bigger footprint when we’ve seen these issues not get resolved historically?” Eaton asked.

Villanueva questioned whether the Markets+ process could guarantee an “equitable result” for all market participants, prompting BPA’s Libby Kirby to reply, “Democracy doesn’t make everybody happy all the time. We know that.”

Tilghman said it was a “head-scratcher” that BPA would not provide funding for the Pathways Initiative, given the size of BPA loads that will end up in EDAM.

Fred Heutte, a senior policy adviser at the NW Energy Coalition (another EDAM supporter), called out Dibble’s comment about CAISO’s policy of curtailing wheel-throughs.

Fred Heutte, NW Energy Coalition | © RTO Insider LLC 

“The question is: Has CAISO ever curtailed a high-priority wheel-through? The answer is ‘no,’” Heutte said, adding that the ISO has curtailed low-priority wheel-throughs “because that’s the structure that they are supposed to follow.” (See FERC Upholds CAISO Wheel-through Rules.)

“If they didn’t handle the high-priority wheel-throughs the way they have, then FERC would be on them in a minute,” he said. “And I’m really unhappy that Bonneville continues to allege that CAISO has not behaved properly with regard to priority wheel-throughs.”

Megan Capper, energy resources manager at Eugene Water & Electric Board, said her utility agrees with BPA about the importance of independent market governance but doesn’t believe it’s the only factor, citing transmission connectivity and footprint size as other critical elements to consider.

“It just feels like, with this [E3] analysis, that independent governance, if you’re going to put a price tag on it, is very expensive,” Capper said, recommending that BPA take an additional six-month delay to see how the Pathways Initiative plays out.

“We’ll take the feedback,” responded Nita Zimmerman, acting CIO at BPA. “At this time, as we’ve stated, we’re staying on our timeline. We’re looking forward to seeing where Pathways has gotten when we get to the point of releasing our draft decision in March and again in May.”

Just as the workshop was both heating up and winding down, Stefanie Johnson, strategic adviser at Seattle City Light (another EDAM supporter), joked that the last 45 minutes of the workshop seemed to cover two days’ worth of material. She said she would send BPA a list of questions “because I felt like I wasn’t supposed to ask them.”

“It’s very contentious these days. That’s why we’re here on a Monday,” Johnson said.

BPA is seeking comments on the workshop by Dec. 6 and plans to hold another two-day workshop in January.

Posted on

ISO-NE Open Board Meeting Sparsely Attended Because of Labor Dispute

An ongoing labor dispute at the hotel hosting ISO-NE’s annual open board meeting Nov. 6 drove sparse attendance and harsh criticism from members of consumer and climate advocacy groups.  

Banquet workers at the Seaport Hotel in Boston have called for a boycott of the hotel since July, saying the hotel management has refused to recognize their union and has retaliated against workers. 

Activists associated with the Fix the Grid and No Coal No Gas campaigns — who have often shown up in large numbers to public meetings held by the RTO — opted not to attend, along with many NEPOOL end-user members. In lieu of participation at the meeting, a joint letter signed by 40 nonprofit groups criticized the RTO for a lack of transparency and accessibility to the public. 

The groups urged the board “to support reforms to ISO-NE and its stakeholder process … that will facilitate the transition to a democratic, transparent and renewable electric grid that is reliable and affordable for all,” adding that the “energy transition must bring everyone along through increased access and accountability, without acting at the expense of workers and impacted communities.” 

The letter also called on the board to add representatives of the New England states to the board, commit more resources to the Consumer Liaison Group, increase the RTO’s community engagement staffing, provide consumer groups with more voting power in NEPOOL and add a focus on decarbonization to ISO-NE’s mission statement.  

“We remain concerned that our ISO is not governed as transparently as other ISOs and RTOs across the country,” the groups wrote. “The energy system we all need and deserve requires collaboration, not division, between technical and public interests.” 

The board’s decision to hold its annual public meeting on the day after the national election also caused criticism from some advocates. The only public commenter at the meeting, New Hampshire Consumer Advocate Don Kreis, similarly took the board to task for a lack of transparency.  

“I am very disappointed that the circumstances of today’s meeting … have scared away most of the people who would have come here to talk to the board,” Kreis said. “If you really do want to listen to the community — meaning the people who pay for and depend on the bulk power transmission system in New England — it would be a good idea to get out of these windowless hotel ballrooms and into communities.” 

Kreis also urged the board to support the states in their effort to reign in “unconstrained and unscrutinized” asset condition project spending and called for the establishment of a tariff-funded independent transmission monitor to scrutinize the spending of the region’s transmission owners. 

At the outset of the meeting, board Chair Cheryl LaFleur addressed the “unique circumstances surrounding today’s meeting,” telling attendees it would have been difficult to reschedule after the RTO booked the hotel in the spring.  

“We understand and respect that some stakeholders felt uncomfortable with attending in person,” LaFleur said.  

Regarding the presidential election, LaFleur said it is “safe to say that the change in presidential administration will affect federal energy policy,” but noted that state policy driving changes in the region has proven more stable. 

“The work of the ISO will continue and is as important as ever,” LaFleur said. 

Discussion of Decarbonization Challenges

The board spent much of the meeting discussing the final report from ISO-NE’s recent Economic Planning for the Clean Energy Transition (EPCET) study, which outlines some of the major challenges the region faces in decarbonizing its resource mix. (See ISO-NE Study Lays Out Challenges of Deep Decarbonization and ISO-NE: New Mechanisms May be Needed to Ensure Future Grid Reliability.) 

The report found significant benefits of clean dispatchable resources — such as small modular reactors (SMRs) or generators running on clean fuel — but said major changes to the current market structures will likely be needed to support these resources.

“Each stage in this journey is going to become more and more difficult,” said ISO-NE CEO Gordon van Welie, noting that energy market prices are likely to see a major decline in the future as resources supported by power purchase agreements suppress prices, putting increasing pressure on the capacity market to provide the missing revenue for resources not supported by PPAs. 

“I’m not a great fan of capacity markets,” van Welie said, “but nobody’s come up with a better construct than that.” 

He emphasized that even with technological breakthroughs in technology like SMRs, the current markets are not well suited to support these new technologies.  

Along with the shift in revenue from the energy market to PPAs and the capacity market, the transition will likely put significant cost pressures on ratepayers, van Welie said. 

“I think we’re in for a fairly costly transition,” he added, noting that the buildout of clean energy resources and transmission infrastructure will likely increase prices over the next couple decades before prices eventually begin to recede.  

He emphasized the “untapped potential” of retail demand response — noting that the RTO’s 2050 Transmission Study found demand response could save the region about $8 billion by 2050 — but said it largely falls on the states to unlock the savings. (See ISO-NE Prices Transmission Upgrades Needed by 2050: up to $26B.) 

Van Welie similarly said it is up to the states to take the lead on efforts to increase transparency and accountability on asset condition investments. He stressed the need to develop trust between the states and transmission owners to enable the companies to cost-effectively right-size asset condition projects in anticipation of demand growth.  

“The question that’s on my mind is: How do we get the region, and in particular the states and the transmission owners, to figure out the solution?” van Welie said, adding that ISO-NE cannot take lead this effort because it is a “regulatory function” and the RTO “is not set up to be a regulator.” 

Responding to van Welie’s comments, Kreis argued that a tariff-funded independent transmission monitor would not be “any more regulatory” than ISO-NE’s Internal Market Monitor. 

“You have eyes; you have insights; you have consciences; please use them,” Kreis said. 

Posted on

Trump’s Victory and its Implications for FERC, Power Markets

The ramifications of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory are going to be bigger elsewhere, but FERC and the industries it regulates will see their share. 

Independent regulatory agencies are never at the top of campaign debates, and it is unclear how much Trump will pull from the plans the Heritage Foundation made for him in the so-called Project 2025, which included changes proposed for the commission by former Trump FERC appointee Bernard McNamee. (See Plan for GOP President: Cut Climate Programs, Re-Examine RTOs.) 

FERC is partisan by design, with members appointed from both parties by the president. This article is focused on Republican appointees, since they will be setting the tone for the next few years. “I think people are feeling that they’re being treated inequitably,” said former FERC Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell. “I think the economic divide grows wider, and I think that gave people a reason to ignore the [misogynistic], racist comments and buy into a promise that we know from the previous administration will never come to be. And on the flip side, Biden stayed too long, and I don’t think that they ever got their economic message out sufficiently. That’s what people cared about.” 

Brownell was appointed to FERC by President George W. Bush, but she is no fan of Trump and spoke to us from London, where she went to escape the elections. She said the results are “mind boggling.” 

One of the biggest questions facing the agency is whom Trump will pick for chair. It has a full slate of commissioners with two Republicans: Mark Christie and Lindsay See. Sources favor See, but the question remains open. 

Another key question for the future composition of FERC is whether Chair Willie Phillips will step down once the gavel is taken away from him, opening a seat for Trump to fill. Chairs tend to leave after a demotion, but Cheryl LaFleur did not, so there is precedent for Phillips remaining. FERC did not respond Nov. 6 to questions about Phillips’ future. 

“They could appoint a chairman, and they could try and steer away from power markets,” Brownell said. 

Utilities, however, have benefited from organized markets, so that would run into opposition, but FERC can exert significant control over the RTOs, and a new commission might try to expand to help the new administration’s policy priorities, she added. It is unclear which way that will go because in a two-party system, the Republicans still have plenty of internal policy debates, she said, adding that she wonders whether traditional GOP “conservatives” or “Trumpers” will win out. 

Brownell put R Street Institute in the former category and its Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Devin Hartmann, a former FERC staffer, told us a lot of the future depends on Phillips’ decision and the makeup of the Senate.  

“There’s a few things that I think that Chairman Phillips has worked on that he wants to see through, and so I’m curious to see if he wants to sort of realize that his legacy could still be executed by sticking around,” Hartmann said. 

That would be a new situation for FERC with a majority of the party not in the White House until Phillips’ term expires in 2026. When it comes to the Senate, whether the GOP’s majority stays in the low 50s or reaches in the mid-50s would have implications for how easily Trump appointees can be confirmed, Hartmann said. 

A narrow majority would give the most moderate Republicans on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), more sway, while a wider margin would allow more conservative voices to take on that role. Hartmann pointed to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) as an important voice with a larger majority. 

“Senator Lee is a very principled conservative, and while some of the rhetoric on FERC specifically has raised eyebrows, he really believes in executing its role fairly and not favoring certain industries,” Hartmann said. 

That has been demonstrated in some of the debates around permitting reform where Lee did not want to carve out policies that favor oil and gas exclusively, favoring technology-neutral approaches instead, he added. 

Cato Institute Director of Energy and Environmental Policy Studies Travis Fisher said his think tank aims to be bipartisan, but his experience includes working on Commissioner McNamee’s personal staff and being the lead author of the Department of Energy’s 2017 Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability. (See FERC’s Independence to be Tested by DOE NOPR.) 

“From my point of view, the odds of getting good free market policy out of the [Democratic] Party — that seems slim,” Fisher said. “So, I’m optimistic that we might have generally more free market policy. But of course, there’s things to not like about each party.” 

One campaign promise Trump made that implicates FERC is to cut utility bills in half, and one way the commission could try to address affordability is to investigate why years of low wholesale power prices, driven by cheap natural gas, have not lowered bills for retail consumers. 

“I’ve put in a few filings at FERC, but you know, it’s one thing to say you’re creating savings at the wholesale level, but they have not really shown how that passes through to actual savings for people paying retail bills,” Fisher said. “And I suspect the crossover between federal and state jurisdiction is going to get a little bit more scrutiny.” 

One issue we brought up with everyone was whether the second Trump administration would try to put its thumb on the scale for coal, as it did with a notice of proposed rulemaking Energy Secretary Rick Perry filed with Fisher’s involvement. He said he doubted that would happen again but declined to discuss it in detail. 

That effort was rejected unanimously by FERC, including three of his appointees — then-Chair Kevin McIntyre and Commissioners Robert Powelson and Neil Chatterjee. Whether the agency gets independent-minded commissioners under Trump depends on who is nominated, Fisher said. 

The Fate of Transmission Reform

A focus of FERC under President Joe Biden has been to reform transmission planning, which led to Order 1920. That was passed along partisan lines of the three-member commission this summer, with Commissioner Christie arguing that the Democrats were favoring the growth of wind and solar above other concerns. 

The majority on the House Energy & Natural Resources Committee made its views known, sending letters to FERC and other agencies to stop any “partisan” policymaking.  

“The results of the 2024 presidential election are now apparent, and leadership of … FERC will soon change,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) wrote. “As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power, FERC should immediately stop work on any partisan or controversial item under consideration, consistent with applicable law and regulation. There are many bipartisan, consensus items that FERC could pursue to fulfill its mission before the end of your tenure. I urge you to focus your attention on these matters.” 

Grid Strategies President Rob Gramlich has been one of the biggest supporters of Order 1920 and he argued the rule still would benefit Trump’s agenda, which is heavy on expanding cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. 

“I think the tech investors and executives are really going to want to see a grid expanded to accommodate power demand growth,” Gramlich said. “And, of course, power demand growth is a key part of Order 1920.” 

FERC could still issue its rehearing order on the rule in the next couple of months, but the change in leadership has implications for how the rule will be implemented and will likely mean a “retreat” from Biden-era policies, he added. 

A big part of the future of transmission reform depends on where Commissioner See comes down, said R Street’s Hartmann. While a lot of the political discourse around the rule has pitted it as trampling states’ rights (one of her top issues), the technical aspects of its changes have been embraced by state commissioners. 

“I think the big question mark will be whether she can decipher the technical merits of Order 1920 from some of the political posturing that we’ve seen from certain states and recognize that actually the states that have been more engaged on transmission issues really do respect the core aspects of Order 1920,” he added. 

Fisher said he was not against expanding the grid as needed, but he doubted it would remain a priority under Trump. 

“We should be candid that the grid might need some transmission, but really the need and the main cause for new transmission is wind and solar, especially wind,” Fisher said. 

If you can characterize transmission expansion as a low-cost option for meeting new demand, then it will get some focus, but FERC will not be mandating grid planning to enable the energy transition or universalizing the costs of state clean energy and climate policies, he added. Arguments about needing to expand the grid to ensure reliability going forward are overblown, he said. 

“It seemed to me to be sort of a false front, that it was just a reason to try to get the right-of-center on board with building more transmission,” Fisher said. 

The Election’s Impact on Resource Adequacy Issues

Reliability is likely to going to be a common theme at FERC under Trump, as it has been under Chair Phillips. There may be differences in how to get there  

President Trump will terminate EPA’s power plant rule, which Fisher noted drew concerned comments from some of the organized markets over its implementation. (See RTOs Seek More Flexible Compliance in Appeal of Power Plant Rule.) 

The end of the power plant rule means that states will not be forced to shut down existing dispatchable generation too early, said Competitive Enterprise Institute Research Fellow Paige Lambert. Coal will not be making a comeback due to cheap shale gas, regardless of Trump’s policy priorities, but the new administration means existing plants will run longer. 

“The focus there really should be on not prematurely closing any existing capacity that we have because prematurely closing reliable capacity like the power plant rule was going to do is going to really undermine reliability in a pretty damaging way,” Lambert said. 

While keeping more coal and natural gas units will add more supply to the resource adequacy equation, the change in policies from the election can also have an impact there. 

MISO did not want to weigh in deeply on the election, as it strives to be nonpartisan, but during a Nov. 6 Resource Adequacy Subcommittee meeting, Director of Strategic Initiatives and Assessments Jordan Bakke briefly invoked the results when discussing the upcoming Regional Resource Assessment, which attempts to project MISO’s resource profile and capacity needs over the next 20 years. He said the differing policies of presidential administrations complicate a clear view of the future generation mix. 

“That and a lot of other things are making [members’] resource planning more challenging,” Bakke said.  

Amanda Durish Cook contributed to this article. 

Posted on

What Will Trump’s Victory Mean for US Energy Policy?

Former President Donald Trump’s victory and future return to the White House will certainly be a setback, but it “won’t be a death knell to the clean energy transition,” Dan Lashof, U.S. director of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement released Nov. 6.

“Most U.S. state, local and private sector leaders are committed to charging ahead,” he said.

Lashof was one of a small army of bleary-eyed energy industry leaders and analysts who had stayed up late following election returns Nov. 5 but were ready to offer some sharp insights on what’s ahead for federal energy policy, regulation and legislation with Trump in the White House and a Republican-led Senate and, possibly, House.

Control of the House was still undecided at NetZero Insider’s deadline on Nov. 6, with the GOP winning 204 seats to the Democrats’ 188, according to The New York Times.

With more than 400 attendees listening in, a post-election webinar, hosted by Bracewell LLP, a policy and advocacy law firm, first dug into the role energy played in Trump’s victory.

Energy was tied up in voters’ concerns about the economy and inflation, which drove a major realignment of working-class voters toward the Republican party, a critical factor in the GOP victory, said Scott Segal, co-chair of Bracewell’s Policy Resolution Group.

“It’s very present in people’s lives. They get a bill every month regarding it. They pass signage as they drive along and see what the price of another energy commodity is,” Segal said.

“Americans are like, I paid less for gas under [Trump]. The end,” agreed Jonathan Martin, senior political columnist at POLITICO.

On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats were hesitant to “put climate front and center, climate per se,” said Liam Donovan, senior political strategist at Bracewell. “You ended up with this weird, untenable business where Harris is on stage in Pennsylvania, talking about how she’s not going to ban fracking. So, it put them on the defensive, whereas the Republicans were able to play offense.”

A wide range of views are now surfacing on what Trump will do on energy policy once back in the White House

The first clues will be who he appoints to key agencies like the Energy Department and the EPA. “Personnel is policy,” Donovan said. “It’s not just about what Donald Trump wants to do, what he has to do. It’s what the people around him intend to do, who are in key positions. What is their agenda, and how does that play out on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue?”

While no announcements have been made, outgoing North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) has generated significant buzz as a possible energy secretary.

In Congress, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is in line to become the GOP Senate whip, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is likely to take over as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Segal said.

He described Lee as “a small government kind of guy. He’s a constitutionalist … [not] a policy empire builder.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will move from ranking member to chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the still undecided House side, if the Democrats squeak out a majority, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) would likely become chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. If Republicans remain in control, Segal sees a three-way contest for committee chair, between Reps. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), with Guthrie having the edge.

Segal noted that Guthrie has focused more on health issues on the committee. But during a speech at the National Clean Energy Week Policymakers Symposium in September, Guthrie labeled Democratic energy policies as “disruptive,” based on radical scare tactics or misinformation. (See The Buzz at NCEW: The Election, Permitting and IRA Tax Credits.)

DOE and the IRA

What’s ahead for Democrats in Congress could be a renewed focus on bipartisanship, said Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), fresh from her own reelection victory. As a Democrat from a Midwest district with former coal mining towns, Budzinski favors an “all of the above” energy transition, recognizing that getting to a clean energy economy will take time.

She would like to see the Treasury Department finalize tax guidance for the 45Z tax credit for biofuels and sustainable aviation fuels, an issue she sees as ripe for bipartisan action, whether by the outgoing Biden administration or the incoming Trump White House.

“I’ve met with my growers who [say], ‘The uncertainty is what’s killing us, and we need that guidance sooner rather than later,’” Budzinski said. Biofuels could be “a win-win throughout the Midwest, where we grow so much corn and soybeans. This is a brand-new market. That’s the thing I hear from my farmers; first and foremost, they want new markets.”

Budzinski’s focus on the potential economic gains that tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act can provide for her constituents reflects what many hope will be bipartisan support to defend at least some of the law’s clean energy tax credits and other incentives.

Segal believes the economic momentum the IRA has created in many red states and congressional districts will make it unlikely the law will face a full repeal. He pointed to the Aug. 6 letter from 18 GOP congress members, calling on Speaker of House Mike Johnson (R-La.) to protect the law’s clean energy tax credits.

Johnson replied that any changes to the law would be made with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

But other analysts have questioned this conventional wisdom. Speaking at the recent Southeast Renewable Energy Conference, Keith Martin, an energy and tax expert at Norton Rose Fulbright, cautioned that as soon as Trump enters the White House he could issue “a Day 1 order telling executive agencies to stop issuing guidance and to stop spending money on the [IRA].”

And if Republicans take control of both houses of Congress, Martin expects them to “cannibalize parts of the Inflation Reduction Act to pay for extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts that expire at the end of next year.” (See SE Renewable Energy Conference Hears Blunt Talk on Trump.)

Barrasso also has a long record of opposition to the IRA and, as ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has repeatedly called for its repeal, labeling it “irresponsible, reckless [and] alarming.”

Another challenge, Segal said, is that many of the programs and incentives in the IRA and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act have not been fully implemented, raising questions about how the transition to the incoming Trump administration will be handled at the Department of Energy.

Mark Menezes, a former deputy secretary of energy for Trump, noted first that DOE has doubled its staff over the past four years specifically to administer the funds in both laws. The handover from one administration to the next will involve the creation of extensive documentation — online “briefing books” — that detail “the offices, what their mission is, the statutory basis, the expenditures, the amount of obligated funds that are all part of these programs.”

The information is used to help prepare new DOE officials for Senate confirmation and decide “whether these programs would likely be continued or not,” said Menezes, who is currently CEO of the U.S. Energy Association.

“One hallmark of the first Trump administration was to not pick winners and losers on technologies or types of energy,” he said. “For example, renewables weren’t forced on a particular group if they did not want to have renewable power.”

Such policies were changed by the Biden administration, and Menezes expects the second Trump administration will again “look for where restrictions exist that do not allow choice by those that need the energy and need affordable energy, to make choices that fit the local community.”

Industry Reactions

Like Budzinski, clean energy organizations have focused on the economic development and jobs the industry has generated as a first step toward working with Trump.

Congratulating the president-elect on his victory, Mark Widmar, CEO at First Solar, said, “We look forward to engaging with him, his administration and Congress on a shared agenda to ensure a level playing field for American manufacturing and supply chains, safeguard American jobs and win the energy technology race against China with American innovation.”

“The advanced energy industry is an immense economic force in America, powering a manufacturing renaissance in towns of all sizes and political preference, and creating financial opportunity in every state in the country, said Heather O’Neill, CEO of Advanced Energy United. “America has only just started to tap into the incredible economic potential of advanced energy. With both parties in agreement that energy costs in America are too high and our energy infrastructure in need of rebuilding, advanced energy technologies are the solution to both, right now and in the years ahead.”

Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, also focused on the increasing role of solar and storage in cutting energy costs for consumers. “America’s solar and storage industry is unleashing abundant, homegrown energy that is creating jobs and delivering affordable, reliable power to every home and business in this country,” Hopper said.

Like others, Hopper said SEIA looks forward to working with the Trump administration “to ensure the solar and storage industry, as well as the domestic manufacturing renaissance we’ve seen over the last few years, continue to thrive and play a vital role in America’s energy economy.”

But Alex McDonough, board chair of the advocacy group Clean Energy for America, called the election results “disappointing” and promised a fight against any efforts to roll back the IRA’s tax credits and incentives.

“If President-elect Trump attempts to repeal the country’s clean energy plan, including critical tax credits, he will fail,” McDonough said. “Cities, states, companies and workers are pushing America forward on our clean energy future and economy because it’s the right direction for our economy, security and climate. We hope Donald Trump and Republican leaders will pursue bipartisan solutions to cut families’ costs, defend American security and innovation, and boost energy independence with clean power.”

Posted on

Clean Energy Sectors Brace for Impact of Trump 2.0

Attempts to quantify the impact former President Donald Trump’s re-election will have on the energy sector are complicated by the sheer number of moving pieces and his unpredictable leadership style.

The morning after Trump’s comeback victory, many deeply knowledgeable people were sharing their opinions, often backed up with inarguable facts. However, Nov. 6 is still too early to predict what impact Trump will have on generation and transmission investment and policy.

As the day began, bond yields jumped, many clean energy stocks tanked, and the U.S. dollar’s value surged on expectations of what might happen in the next few years. But many variables remain unknown:

    • Trump’s promised tariffs might boost the cost of development, but corporate tax cuts might ease the pressure, and increased deficit spending might boost the cost of debt.
    • His America First stance could create macroeconomic trends in its own right.
    • Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress could greatly empower the president, but perhaps not on every issue, as the margin of control is likely to be thin.
    • Trump has pledged to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, but some of the clearest economic benefits from the landmark measure have been in Republican states whose congressional representatives likely would want to protect them.
    • Trump has promised to increase and expedite domestic oil and gas production, but the U.S. already is producing more than any country ever has. And his threatened sanctions on Venezuela and Iran might alter commodity prices, as might his promised end to the Russia-Ukraine war.

To be sure, there were some clear losers from Trump’s re-election.

The Wall Street Journal summed the mood up in a single headline: “Why Trump’s Victory Is So Dangerous for Clean-Energy Companies.”

Three disparate examples: NextEra Energy, Plug Power and Sunrun closed 5.3%, 21.8% and 29.6% lower, respectively, on a day when the major U.S. stock indices all catapulted to record highs.

In its first take on the results, research and strategy firm Jeffries said there were more losers than winners, with the offshore wind, electric vehicle, hydrogen, residential solar and storage sectors at greatest risk. Inflation and Federal Reserve policy would be key determinants, it said.

But not every player in the “green” sector slumped on the election results.

GE Vernova, which follows the all-of-the-above strategy that some Republicans embrace, closed 6.5% higher. EV industry leader Tesla, whose CEO campaigned hard for the soon-to-be EV skeptic-in-chief, saw its stock close 14.8% higher.

Wind power, which Trump dismissed with an expletive at an October campaign rally, might very well have a tough few years ahead — especially in the offshore sector, which has been struggling to build momentum in U.S. waters and relies heavily on federal financial support.

Even if it cannot find a legally defensible means to halt the projects under construction or revoke leases and approvals, the Trump administration could stop defending the many lawsuits against these projects or slow-walk the regulatory process.

Speakers at a major offshore wind energy industry conference in Atlantic City, N.J., just a week before Election Day, put a brave face on the matter, but many were clearly hoping Vice President Kamala Harris would pull out a victory and clearly worried about the prospect of her defeat. (See WINDPOWER: Industry Puts on Game Face as Election Nears.)

The world’s leading offshore wind developer, Ørsted, and leading Western wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, both saw their stock close 12.8% lower Nov. 6. Vestas had announced its first U.S. offshore turbine contract just eight weeks earlier.

The need for increased electrical generation and transmission capacity to support the U.S. economy and lifestyle does not change with Trump’s election. There is partisan disagreement, sometimes strident, on how to meet that need but broad agreement that it must be met.

With Trump returning to power and the party united behind him, there were many long faces in the clean energy and environmental advocacy communities Nov. 6.

“Donald Trump was a disaster for climate progress during his first term, and everything he’s said and done since suggests he’s eager to do even more damage this time,” Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous said in a statement. The organization filed more than 300 lawsuits against his first administration and pledged to fight tooth and nail against any predations on the environment during the second.

Damage control was the order of the day after an election with a clear and uncontested result. While the climate and energy transition were not among the top speaking points of either candidate, there was no mistaking where they both stood.

Large industry groups spoke of moving forward.

American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet congratulated Trump and reminded him that its members share his stated goals: bringing manufacturing back to U.S. communities and creating jobs.

“Domestically produced clean power is vital to meeting our nation’s surging electricity demand,” he said. “Our industry grew by double digits each year under the first Trump administration and has accelerated this rate of progress since. We are committed to working with the Trump-Vance administration and the new Congress to continue this great American success story.”

Oceantic Network tried embracing rather than vilifying Trump. It credited his first administration with laying the groundwork for what is now a $40 billion U.S. industry that has directly invested $24 billion in 39 states and said Trump now can do more, and better. “With President Trump in office, we have the opportunity to harness even more investment and measurable economic benefits for communities across the country,” CEO Liz Burdock said. “The U.S. offshore wind industry stands ready to welcome new investments in American factories and shipyards.”