New England Officials Speak on Grid Transformation

By Michael Kuser

WESTBOROUGH, Mass. — State and regional officials last week updated the Environmental Business Council of New England (EBCNE) on the rapid progress of renewable energy development across the region.

grid transformation
EBCNE President Daniel Moon welcomes regional state energy officials to update his members at the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Headquarters on July 11. | © RTO Insider

grid transformation
Catherine Finneran, Eversource Energy | © RTO Insider

The debriefing took place at the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife headquarters, the first state-owned building to achieve net zero energy use. Director Mark Tisa said he was proud of having served as the agency’s lead on its construction in 2012, and that the LEED Platinum certified building sits on 1,000 acres of protected and open space, a small slice of the more than 225,000 acres of such land under its management in the state.

“We’re very lucky to live and work in this region, in this sector, with these leaders that you’ll hear from today,” said Catherine Finneran, director of environmental affairs at Eversource Energy, introducing the speakers. “They’re really leading innovative programs that are ahead of many other states and regions to tackle both energy and environmental challenges that we face as a region.”

Wind Jumps the Queue

grid transformation
Mark Tisa, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife | © RTO Insider

“When we think about the resource mix, what’s been proposed in the region, we think of this as the generator interconnection queue … for many years it was dominated by gas-fired generation,” said Eric Johnson, ISO-NE director of external affairs, who serves as president of the Connecticut Power and Energy Society.

Natural gas “has actually dropped to about third place in the queue, and by far the largest resource now is wind, primarily offshore wind,” he said.

“Most of the wind used to be proposed in Maine, but now we’re seeing a lot of that happen in southern New England, in the offshore space, with Massachusetts alone at over 6,000 MW,” Johnson said. “We see that in Rhode Island and Connecticut.”

grid transformation
Eric Johnson, ISO-NE | © RTO Insider

The region will not need 20,000 MW of new resources on a system that peaks at 28,000 MW, so not every project that developers propose will get built, but every proposal must go through the RTO’s study process, he said.

“Battery storage was not even in my presentation a couple years ago, then it showed up at about 50 MW, then 100 MW, then 200 MW, then 800 MW, and now it’s out of date as soon as we print it,” Johnson said. “So now we have almost 2,400 MW of battery storage in New England, and a lot of that is driven by policy direction set by the states.”

New England has also experienced tremendous growth in solar, he said: “In 2010, we had 40 MW of solar on the system, and if you go in the control room now, that doesn’t even show up. That’s noise.”

Land Ho is Wind Woe

Judith Judson, Massachusetts DOER | © RTO Insider

Commissioner Judith Judson of the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources responded to a question about the Edgartown Conservation Commission having the previous day denied a permit for Vineyard Wind’s cables to come ashore on Martha’s Vineyard — and about the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in June having declined to issue its final environmental impact statement on the 800-MW offshore wind project.

“We’re absolutely committed to offshore wind. We just doubled down on it very recently, and I think developing projects is challenging,” Judson said. “That is a fact. I think siting large projects is challenging because of the amount of neighbors and the amount of entities impacted. Hopefully we can work through those challenges … you sometimes get setbacks. We’re out now with our second solicitation for offshore wind, and I’m hoping for a robust response. It’s unfortunate and no one wants to see these types of delays.”

grid transformation
Carol Grant, Rhode Island OER | © RTO Insider

Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources Commissioner Carol Grant said, “The offshore industry comes from Europe, and honestly, their interactions with different states have them scratching their heads sometimes. They’ll say, ‘Really, we’ve dealt with the feds, now there’s another state and another state and another state.’”

Matthew Mailloux, energy adviser in the New Hampshire Office of Strategic Initiatives, said his state has formed an offshore wind task force, begun the formal lease application process with BOEM, and initiated a regional collaboration on offshore wind with Maine and Massachusetts, aided by EBCNE.

Mailloux said a letter from Gov. Chris Sununu to BOEM in January led to creation of the agency’s Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force.

Dan Burgess, Maine GEO | © RTO Insider

Dan Burgess, director of Maine Gov. Janet Mills’ Energy Office, touted his state’s direction toward offshore wind.

“The previous administration, in power for eight years, had not focused on offshore wind, but we’re bringing it back,” Burgess said.

He highlighted the revival of the Maine Aqua Ventus project to test a floating turbine off the coast, which he said is “important because the water is too deep off Maine for fixed-bottom turbines.”

Burgess also said that a bill in the Maine legislature (LD 1646) to have the state take over and own the Central Maine Power and Emera Maine utilities “has gotten a lot of attention” and will be the subject of a Public Utilities Commission study.

Grid Transformation

Anne Margolis, Vermont DPS | © RTO Insider

Anne Margolis, assistant director of planning for the Vermont Department of Public Service, said her state has a strong focus on modernizing rate design and getting people to use electricity at times of lower demand.

“We’re distinct from the [Public Utility Commission]. … We’re the body that advocates on behalf of ratepayers and the state’s energy policies,” she said, adding that one utility, Green Mountain Power, serves 75% of load, and that Vermont represents 4% of New England load.

Margolis complimented ISO-NE’s Johnson on the RTO’s recent Grid Transformation Day and said she appreciates the grid operator “flagging a potential issue” and offering a solution. (See ‘Grid Transformation Day’ Highlights ISO-NE Challenges.)

Massachusetts’ Judson asked, “How do we think about a grid that is no longer big power plants going on the transmission, stepping down onto distribution, but now is small generation, in aggregate large amounts of generation on a system that was never designed for that?”

Eric Johnson, ISO-NE; Anne Margolis, Vermont DPS; Matthew Mailloux, New Hampshire OSI; Dan Burgess, Maine GEO; Commissioner Carol Grant, Rhode Island OER; and Commissioner Judith Judson, Massachusetts DOER. | © RTO Insider

Electricity constitutes 27% of the energy use in Massachusetts, behind transportation at 44% and thermal (building heating) at 39%.

“When we electrify the heating of buildings, we get a huge leverage effect from the investments we’ve already made. … Combine that with energy efficiency, and you’re getting massive benefits,” Judson said. “We invest a tremendous amount in [energy efficiency]; [we’ll] invest $2.7 billion over the next three years … whereas California invests around $1 billion on a grid three times as large … but we get great returns.”

The DOER projects $9.3 billion in savings from the state’s EE investment over the next three years.

“We still have these times of the year when we’re overly dependent on natural gas, where our system, because of demands for heating and generation, has to switch to oil and other resources,” Judson said. “We continue to need to think about that reliability constraint on our system. If you can do LNG, that can be something in the short term, that may be one solution, but how do you have that storage capability for that type of fuel given that longer term … you’re planning to transition away from it.”

MISO Resource Adequacy Subcomm. Briefs: July 10, 2019

CARMEL, Ind. — MISO’s Independent Market Monitor intends to reduce its monitoring of physical withholding by small behind-the-meter generators in the footprint.

Most of MISO’s BTMGs are about 2 MW, and the Monitor is proposing only monitoring for physical withholding by units of at least 10 MW. It would still not recommend enforcement action for any possible economic withholding from BTMGs.

“Excluding these resources will improve efficiency, allowing for more focus on resources that may have market power,” the Monitor explained.

MISO
Michael Chiasson, Potomac Economics | © RTO Insider

IMM staffer Michael Chiasson told the Resource Adequacy Subcommittee on Wednesday that he would only scrutinize aggregated nodes of BTMG for physical withholding if one of those groups contained a generator larger than 10 MW. Groups that contain multiple smaller generators that exceed 10 MW combined would still be left alone.

According to the Monitor’s count, MISO contains 826 BTMGs, with 547 of those serving as load-modifying resources. BTMG comprises just 5,089 MW of MISO’s Generation Verification Test Capacity and 4,582 MW of unforced capacity.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission staff member Hwikwon Ham asked if the Monitor foresees large groups of small BTMGs exercising market power.

“We still think that they’re unlikely to have market power,” Chiasson said. “If we do see something that’s alarming, that doesn’t prevent us from taking action and filing a recommendation with FERC. Our hands really aren’t tied here.”

“Is this in the spirit of [ERCOT’s philosophy that] ‘small fish swim free?’” MISO’s Michael Robinson asked.

Chiasson said he wasn’t familiar with ERCOT’s controversial protections for small generators that control less than 5% of the Texas wholesale energy market. Such generators are dubbed too small to hold market power and are exempt from penalties for market power abuse.

“The small fish can be pivotal in certain circumstances,” Customized Energy Solutions’ David Sapper said.

MISO staff said that if supplies ever became so scarce that small BTMGs become pivotal suppliers and rake in higher prices, they would deserve the high compensation for providing a critical service.

Staff said the new BTMG physical withholding rule would likely be included in a monitoring rule update filed at FERC before fall.

Additionally, the Monitor plans to add default technology-specific avoidable costs for solar generation and battery storage at $64.11/MW-day and $109.59/MW-day, respectively.

Most of MISO’s capacity market participants elect to use the Monitor’s default avoidable costs, saving time and effort rather than calculating and documenting individual refence levels for generation. The Monitor relies on the same values PJM currently uses, although PJM does not maintain values for solar and storage.

MISO Reviews OMS Survey

MISO staff took time to reassess with stakeholders the results of last month’s annual Organization of MISO States resource adequacy survey.

The survey forecasts a generation surplus of about 3 to 6 GW in 2020, about 1 to 4 GW in 2021 and about 1 to 3.4 GW in 2022. The range of possibilities in 2023 and 2024 varies the most, with the forecast indicating anything from a 1.3-GW shortfall to a 7-GW surplus in 2023, and a 2.3-GW shortfall to another 7-GW surplus in 2024. This is the sixth iteration of the survey. Last year’s forecasted a possible 0.1-GW shortfall in 2020. (See Supply Future Brighter, OMS-MISO Survey Shows.)

“Quite a few resources have firmed up their availability over the last year,” MISO’s Stuart Hansen said. “We’re resource-sufficient for the next three years. It’s 2023 and 2024 when we may have a problem area.”

But Hansen said that even in those years MISO by no means has a guaranteed adequacy risk. He said changes in load and new resource additions from the approximately 100-GW interconnection queue could come online and mitigate possible shortfalls.

“Every single year, we’re going to see this change,” he said, adding that 2020 “looked bad” from last year’s perspective but has since become “3 GW long.”

MISO is circulating survey results with state public service commissions in its footprint.

“I’m not too concerned,” Hansen said of forecasted potential deficits. “This survey is a tool to open dialogues with state commissions [and] utilities.”

The Coalition of Midwest Power Producers’ Mark Volpe asked why MISO is initiating outreach on the survey with state commissions when it is market participants that respond.

Hansen said the RTO is simply ensuring states are aware of the survey’s resource adequacy results. He said MISO does not cross-check survey results against states’ integrated resource plans.

Volpe also asked if MISO may recalibrate survey results based on new public announcements regarding retirements and new plant construction.

“We may look at that, but we do have a cutoff period. At some point, those would become part of the 2020 survey. If you’re asking if we would open it up now, probably not,” Hansen said.

But Hansen reassured stakeholders that the survey results include the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s June 20 announcement of the retirement of 2 GW of coal-burning generation in the state. Southern Illinois’ Zone 4 is one of three local resource zones in MISO that could experience capacity shortfalls from 2020 to 2024.

— Amanda Durish Cook

MISO Market Subcommittee Briefs: July 11, 2019

MISO is now aiming for a six-day horizon for its new, comprehensive multiday operating margin forecast.

“Our plan is to roll this out incrementally,” said Chuck Hansen, of MISO’s market design team.

MISO
Chuck Hansen, MISO | © RTO Insider

The first iteration of the forecast will look ahead six days, be updated once daily and estimate a daily peak hour on the systemwide, MISO Midwest and MISO South levels. Future versions of the forecast may contain multiday hourly load and wind forecasts, behind-the-meter generation forecasts, interchange forecasts and data on emergency resources.

Hansen said the idea is to build a “data warehouse” and flexible analytical platform so that MISO can easily add new sources of information for a more nuanced forecast.

“We want to be able to change the report without starting from scratch,” Hansen said.

MISO introduced the concept last month, although it offered few specifics on what the forecasting would entail. (See MISO Adding Week-ahead Forecasts.) The new forecast will be purely informational for market participants and won’t be tied to financial commitments.

Since last month, MISO has analyzed more than five years’ worth of its systemwide load and wind generation forecasting and found it has been “generally accurate,” Hansen said.

He said he would return to the Market Subcommittee in August with more details and a more precise timeline on the project.

Short-term Reserve Filing Coming Shortly

MISO will file with FERC in mid-August a proposal to create a short-term reserve product, staff told the Market Subcommittee.

The RTO said it hopes to roll out the product in mid-2021, supported by a soon-to-be-replaced market platform. It also plans a post-implementation review in 2023 to gauge the product’s performance and delivered cost savings.

Based on simulations, MISO expects the reserves to deliver an estimated $5 million in net annual production benefits and a $1.6 million reduction in annual revenue sufficiency guarantee payments.

After stakeholders questioned the analysis behind the $5 million savings, staff said the RTO performed a rough estimate of the benefits based on the best available information.

The product will be designed to furnish capacity within 30 minutes. MISO expects it will help better manage the regional directional transfer limit and help local areas that lack available and flexible resources, especially in southeastern Louisiana in Zone 6 and East Texas in Zone 7, both of which have local reliability issues. (See MISO Prototyping Short-term Reserve Product.)

MISO has set a $100/MW market-wide demand curve for the reserves, so the market is designed to naturally clear energy before it clears the reserve product. The product will be subject to monitoring for physical and economic withholding just like ancillary services, with mitigation measures only applied in constrained regions and zones, not market-wide. Offers below $10/MWh will be excluded from economic withholding monitoring.

— Amanda Durish Cook

SPP Seeks Slimmer Stakeholder Group Structure

By Tom Kleckner

SPP has launched an initiative to trim the number of stakeholder groups in its organizational structure, saying it will improve the RTO’s effectiveness.

Staff is currently gathering feedback from SPP members on various proposed combinations of merged working groups and committees and how best to ensure important work is not lost in the shuffle.

SPP is targeting 14 working groups and the Seams Steering (SSC) and Balancing Authority Operating (BAOC) committees. Exceptions include the committees that report to the Board of Directors and Members Committee, the Market Monitoring Unit, and the Credit Practices (CPWG) and Cost Allocation (CAWG) working groups. The CPWG reports to the Finance Committee, and the CAWG reports to the stand-alone Regional State Committee.

SPP
Lanny Nickell | © RTO Insider

“With the organization’s focus on value and affordability to our stakeholders, we’re looking at a variety of potential measures to streamline processes, improve effectiveness and provide the highest degree of value possible,” SPP Vice President of Engineering Lanny Nickell said in a statement.

Nickell said the effort originated in the Value and Affordability Task Force (VATF), which was formed in January to review the cost recovery of transmission investments as well as the ongoing benefit from those investments and SPP’s operation. (See “Altenbaumer Continues to Exert his Influence” in SPP Strategic Planning Committee Briefs: Jan. 16, 2019.)

He said the task force requested an assessment of SPP’s organizational structure “that considers whether we can achieve more value by consolidating and improving coordination among groups and reducing meetings and travel across our sizeable footprint.”

Staff has been gathering feedback on four proposed combinations:

  • The BAOC, SSC, Operating Reliability (ORWG) and Operations Training (OTWG) working groups
  • The SSC and the Transmission, Economic Studies and Project Cost working groups
  • The Business Practices, Regional Compliance, Regional Tariff, Security and System Protection and Control working groups
  • The Business Practices, Change, Market and Supply Adequacy working groups

Two of the combinations involving the SSC would see the committee disbanded, with its responsibilities picked up by either the Operating Reliability, Economic Studies or Transmission working groups. Staff has also suggested in one scenario the OTWG be disbanded, with an advisory panel or the ORWG picking up its training responsibilities.

“The discussions are in the early phases,” SSC Staff Secretary Clint Savoy told his group during its July 10 meeting. “In my personal opinion, I believe we should operate as if the Seams [Steering] Committee will continue.”

Staff has also been gathering general suggestions from members on SPP’s organizational group structure. Stakeholders have suggested reducing the number of face-to-face Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) meetings and using conference calls to address less contentious Tariff changes.

SPP
| SPP

The MOPC meets quarterly two weeks before the board meetings and is responsible, through its organizational groups, for developing and recommending policies and procedures related to SPP’s technical operations.

Stakeholders also suggested improving the working groups’ effectiveness by having longer meetings with more work, coordinating meetings with similar groups, creating more “meaningful, action-oriented” agendas and facilitating information sharing through focus groups.

Nickell will update MOPC on the effort during its July 16-17 meeting in Des Moines, Iowa. MOPC Chair Holly Carias, with NextEra Energy Resources, and Vice-Chair Denise Buffington, with Evergy Companies KCP&L and Westar, will also play a part in the presentation.

The VATF is to weigh in with its own feedback by July 31. MOPC is scheduled to see draft recommendations during its October meeting and the Corporate Governance Committee (CGC) in November. The CGC will then recommend changes to the board in December or January, with the changes implemented in 2020.

PJM Stakeholders Push Unified Cost Calculator

By Christen Smith

VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — PJM generators urged fellow stakeholders to support a unified opportunity cost calculator capable of wiping out the compliance risks of the dual systems currently offered through the RTO and its Independent Market Monitor.

PJM discussion of opportunity cost calculator
Bob O’Connell, Panda Power Funds | © RTO Insider

“PJM wants the status quo with respect to its calculator and the Monitor wants its calculator, and we are still in this situation where market participants can’t get one calculator to eliminate compliance risk,” said Bob O’Connell, director of regulatory affairs and compliance for Panda Power Funds, during a Market Implementation Committee meeting on Wednesday.

Under current procedure, market participants can either use PJM’s calculator in Markets Gateway or the Monitor’s modeling system to build energy cost offers with appropriate adders that help ensure a generator will recoup losses when its resources are scheduled outside of their most economic operating intervals. Some of these opportunity costs arise when regulatory agencies impose environmental run hour restrictions, physical equipment limitations trigger operational restrictions, and force majeure events constrain access to fuel.

“The objective is to make the generator whole,” said Glen Boyle, manager in PJM’s operations analysis and compliance. “Neither PJM nor the IMM will be presenting packages, because we are OK with the status quo.”

Clearly, stakeholders are not.

A New Path

O’Connell presented the MIC with three proposals — drafted in consultation with Dominion Energy — that streamline the calculators to varying degrees.

The first makes small changes that don’t force PJM to rewrite its calculator, O’Connell said. The second revises PJM’s modeling process to mimic the Monitor’s, which many stakeholders prefer for its reliability. The third consolidates the former package into one single calculator, “eliminating all compliance risk,” O’Connell said.

“When you use the Market Monitor’s calculator, the market participant’s only risk is taking the adder the Monitor provides and incorporating into its offer properly,” O’Connell said. “While there is some compliance risk, it’s very limited. As long as you know how to cut and paste, you’re usually in pretty good shape.”

PJM discussion of opportunity cost calculator
Glen Boyle, PJM | © RTO Insider

The PJM calculator, however, gives the market seller more control over the modeling process, allowing more room for error and raising compliance risks — the source of O’Connell’s concern when he proposed a task force to revise the calculators in March 2017, he said.

“I’m concerned we won’t be able to get there [one consolidated calculator],” O’Connell said. “We basically decided to offer three packages so we could at least get to something that improves the situation a little more.”

Panda and Dominion will seek endorsement of one of the proposals at the August MIC meeting, O’Connell said.

The packages come five months after O’Connell made a motion at the February Members Committee meeting to table a vote on Operating Agreement language that would force PJM to accept the IMM’s calculator. (See “Calculator Vote Place in a ‘Parking Lot,’” PJM MRC/MC Briefs: Feb. 21, 2019.)

At the time, O’Connell said the unusual motion puts the issue in a “procedural parking lot,” giving members flexibility to bring up the issue on short notice in case PJM suddenly decides the Monitor’s calculator is no longer valid.

O’Connell drafted the language after PJM told members last August it would reject the Monitor’s opportunity cost calculator, the culmination of a yearlong dispute over the “increasingly” divergent results produced by the two organizations. (See Stakeholder Proposal Aimed at Ending PJM-IMM Dispute.) The PJM Board of Managers approved Manual 15 revisions in January that governed the use of the IMM calculator as an alternative, effectively reversing the RTO’s earlier decision.

Boyle said Wednesday that PJM must maintain a calculator as mandated by the Tariff and will make clarifying updates to Manual 15 regarding immature units, dual-fuel units and application functionality.

Newsom Names New California PUC President

By Hudson Sangree

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his choice Friday for a new leader of the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

Gov. Gavin Newsom named his new CPUC president during the signing ceremony for a landmark wildfire bill Friday. | © RTO Insider

Marybel Batjer, currently the state’s government operations secretary, will soon replace retiring President Michael Picker, Newsom said. He called Batjer “one of the best in the business.”

“She is about reorganization,” Newsom said. “She is about governance.”

Batjer’s official biography says she was appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013 to head the Government Operations Agency, a new entity charged with improving efficiency and accountability in state government as part of Brown’s reorganization efforts.

Newsom kept her on in that role and gave her the job of reforming the Department of Motor Vehicles, one of the state’s most inefficient bureaucracies.

Marybel Batjer will be the new CPUC president. | State of California

“She has led forward-looking efforts to revamp the way the state approaches data and technology, modernized the civil service system, and has led the implementation of key initiatives to green state government and promote renewable energy,” Newsom’s office said in a news release.

“Prior to taking office at CPUC, Batjer will complete her work later this month as head of Gov. Newsom’s DMV Strike Team, which has already begun implementation of key changes to transition the California Department of Motor Vehicles into a more customer-friendly and user-centered culture, to better serve Californians,” it said.

She’s expected to take office at the CPUC at the beginning of August.

Previously, Batjer was vice president of public policy and corporate social responsibility for Caesars Entertainment. Her state and federal government experience includes stints as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s cabinet secretary, special assistant to the secretary of the Navy in the George H.W. Bush administration and a national security advisor in the Reagan administration.

Newsom made the announcement during a press conference and signing ceremony for Assembly Bill 1054, a major new wildfire law that will be implemented in part by the CPUC. (See Calif. Utility Relief Bill Speeds to Governor.)

The CPUC has come under fire in the last year for moving slowly in response to California’s wildfire crisis. There were rumors months ago that Newsom intended to appoint his own CPUC president to replace Picker, a former aide to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Picker said in a recent interview with RTO Insider that Newsom hadn’t asked him to leave, but that he felt it was time to retire. (See Retiring CPUC President Still Has Lots to Say.)

Newsom thanked Picker for his service Friday.

“Michael has brought deep expertise in energy policy and a commitment to advancing the state’s climate goals,” the governor said in a statement. “His knowledge, vision and commitment has been critical as the state examines the role of utilities following recent catastrophic wildfires, and necessary changes in an era of climate change.”

Picker was unavailable Friday, according to an aide. Batjer could not immediately be reached for comment.

UPDATED: Calif. Wildfire Relief Bill Signed After Quick Passage

By Hudson Sangree

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Friday that’s intended to shore up California’s investor-owned utilities against wildfire liability.

Newsom pushed lawmakers to quickly pass Assembly Bill 1054, which they did in less than a week after it was amended to reflect the governor’s wildfire plan. It takes effect immediately as an urgency measure.

“I want to thank the Legislature for taking thoughtful and decisive action to move our state toward a safer, affordable and reliable energy future,” the governor said in a statement after the Assembly gave the bill its final approval Thursday. “The rise in catastrophic wildfires fueled by climate change is a direct threat to Californians.”

The bill does not give utilities the relief from California’s strict liability standard, known as inverse condemnation, that they wanted. But it creates a $21 billion fund to pay for wildfire damages, to be bankrolled equally by ratepayers and the state’s three large investor-owned utilities.

California
A DC-10 airtanker battles the Woolsey Fire last November. | U.S. Forest Service

Under the measure, the IOUs could opt in and contribute an initial $7.5 billion in aggregate and pay $3 billion more over the next 10 years. Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric would cover 64.2%, 31.5% and 4.3%, respectively, based in part on the size of the utilities and the miles of power lines that run through high-fire-risk areas.

Ratepayers would fund their $10.5 billion share through charges on electric bills, averaging a few dollars per month.

Elected officials hope the fund will head off further downgrades by credit rating agencies of SCE and SDG&E and alleviate concerns those utilities, like PG&E, could wind up in bankruptcy.

(The bill allows utilities to opt for a $10.5 billion state-backed line of credit in lieu of the wildfire fund. They must choose within 15 days. The general belief is they will opt for the wildfire fund.)

PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January, citing billions of dollars in wildfire liability from November’s Camp Fire, the deadliest in state history with 85 fatalities, and a series of devastating blazes in 2017.

SCE’s equipment is suspected of starting the Woolsey Fire, also in November 2018, which killed three people and destroyed more than 1,600 structures. The utility also faces massive liability for 2017’s Thomas Fire, which it admitted may have been sparked by its equipment. That fire killed two people, while ensuing mudslides caused by rain drenching charred hillsides caused 21 deaths. (See Edison Takes Partial Blame for Wildfire in Earnings Call.)

SCE and SDG&E each had their credit ratings downgraded, although the latter hasn’t had a significant utility-sparked fire in years, since it began a major grid hardening effort that’s often citied as a model.

Stabilizing California

Those who supported the bill said bolstering the utilities against insolvency would allow fire victims to be compensated more quickly and maintain stable rates for customers.

“We’re talking about victims, ratepayers and the industry that keeps the lights on,” said Assemblyman Chris Holden, one of the bill’s three co-authors and chairman of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

The measure requires PG&E to exit bankruptcy by June 30, 2020, and pony up its share of the initial $7.5 billion before it can recoup costs from the wildfire fund.

It also requires the IOUs to pay a combined $5 billion for fire-safety upgrades without recouping profits from ratepayers through a return on equity.

The Woolsey Fire killed three people in the Malibu area last year. | Department of Defense

Assemblywoman Eloise Reyes said she struggled with the bill but decided to vote “yes” because she felt it would compel PG&E to leave bankruptcy and prioritize safety, while stabilizing electric service and rates in California.

“In the end our job is to stabilize California,” Reyes said.

While speakers on the Assembly floor Thursday generally praised the bill and urged its passage, others remained troubled.

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a Los Angeles-area Democrat, asked “whether we could have done better if we had more than two weeks” to weigh the measure. The bill, in its current form, was first printed two weeks ago and then heavily amended July 5 over the holiday weekend.

It cleared two state Senate committees Monday before being passed by the upper house, all in a matter of hours. (See Calif. Lawmakers Rush to Pass Utility Wildfire Aid.)

Last year, lawmakers hastily passed Senate Bill 901, another major wildfire bill, under pressure from then-Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders. They were told if they didn’t pass the bill, PG&E would go bankrupt, which it did anyway.

“Now we’re being asked to pass this bill, and if we don’t pass it [by July 12] according to the governor … then Edison is going to be downgraded to junk bond status and may face bankruptcy,” Muratsuchi said. He questioned whether the utility would follow the same course as PG&E.

Assemblyman Marc Levine, a Democrat who represents a district north of San Francisco, voted “no” on the measure and said it was not right to offer PG&E assistance when it had yet to upgrade its power lines to prevent fires.

The Caribou-Palermo transmission line that sparked the Camp Fire was 100 years old, and maintenance had been deferred repeatedly, leading to 85 deaths, he said. Other PG&E lines in high-risk areas may be in similar condition, he said.

“It is hard not to see this bill as a reward for monstrous behavior,” Levine told his colleagues. “They have not done the work. They should not be rewarded.”

No Breakthrough Seen on FR Measurements

By Rich Heidorn Jr.

An analysis by a half-dozen Eastern RTOs and utilities has found no substantial gains from changing how they measure frequency response, according to the standard drafting team considering modifications to BAL-003-1.1 (Project 2017-01).

BAL-003-1.1 (Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting) states that a balancing authority typically calculates its frequency response measure (FRM) based on “the change in its net actual interchange (NAI) on its tie lines with its adjacent balancing authorities divided by the change in interconnection frequency.” Some BAs apply corrections to the NAI to account for nonconforming loads.

PJM, MISO, SPP, Ontario IESO, Southern Co. and Duke Energy compared BAL-003 calculations based on NAI with those using net interchange error (NIE) to account for differences between schedules and actual operations.

FR
Danielle Croop, PJM | © ERO Insider

“The hope was that we would see more of a true frequency response instead of potentially getting an inaccurate response because of different schedule changes,” PJM’s Danielle Croop explained during a drafting team conference call July 11. “Our findings were underwhelming. We did not necessarily see a big difference or a big improvement using the NIE data vs. the NAI. …The initial thought is you’re just shifting the problem and not necessarily fixing the problem.”

Croop said PJM and SPP also looked at their generation data as well as tie line data.

“Unfortunately, we don’t know if that provided good results either, because it’s hard to just measure frequency response over a period of time when you have units doing other things for other reasons like economic dispatch or … regulation. … We haven’t really found anything that we see [as] very promising or improvements from what we have today.”

Tom Pruitt of Duke Energy Carolinas, who said he also looked at generation data, agreed with Croop’s conclusion.

“For the time frame we were looking at, we’ve got a number of other activities occurring that are clouding [the data]. If you’re looking for a simple primary frequency response, it’s going to be difficult to separate that from market activity and other actions that are occurring.”

FR
David Lemmons, Ethos Energy | © ERO Insider

Drafting team Chairman David Lemmons, of Ethos Energy Group, asked whether the members agreed that measuring load is also not viable.

“Recognize first that the measurement of load for most BAs is actually a calculation of the generation less the ties — it’s a derived value,” responded Pruitt. “It’s not going to be any better than the measurement of ties or interchange error or net generation. If you were capable of measuring individual loads themselves, and get the time synch correct, yeah [you could do it]. But that’s a heck of a lot of work.”

Lemmons said that although the findings were disappointing, they represented progress, nonetheless. “I’m not going to say it’s great news because we’re not seeing a marvelous advancement,” he said. “But it’s at least moving forward with the investigation to determine if there’s something better we could use.”

The team also discussed potential generator requirements in a revised standard.

“Be thinking about what it is you think a generator requirement actually does,” said Lemmons. “Is it a setting just of the governor or is it performance regardless of any other controls in the system? I need to be sure everyone on the team is on the same plane when we post something if we’re going to post it.”

The team will meet in person on July 22-23 at Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) offices in Lakewood, Colo.

Customers Probe BPA on EIM Impact

By Robert Mullin

PORTLAND, Ore. — Bonneville Power Administration officials on Monday likely dispelled any lingering doubts about their intent to join the Western Energy Imbalance Market (EIM), but it will take some time to address stakeholders’ questions about how the move will affect them.

BPA last month circulated a BPA Marches Toward EIM Membership.)

A proposal attached to that letter detailed the raft of benefits of joining the EIM, including more efficient generation dispatch, as well as improved transmission usage, congestion management and voltage control. BPA also touted the ability to use the EIM as a “non-wires” solution to address congestion and avoid new transmission builds while also helping to identify areas of needed investment.

BPA
From left, BPA’s Todd Kochheiser, Suzanne Cooper, Steve Kerns, Russ Mantifel, Rebekah Pettinger, Tom Davis and Todd Miller | © RTO Insider

Some BPA “preference” customers attending the last in a series of “EIM stakeholder” meetings Monday sought to get into the weeds of what EIM membership would mean for them and their workaday relationships with the federal power agency. Those customers represent the Pacific Northwest’s publicly owned utilities, which get first priority for the energy coming off the Columbia River Power System managed by BPA.

Tom Haymaker, manager of energy planning and operations for Clark Public Utilities in Washington, said he’d been “wrestling” with the issue of the “interplay” between the region’s existing hourly bilateral market and the EIM’s intra-hour market — and how BPA would make decisions about offering energy into each after joining the EIM.

“We’re going to be a player in the real-time hourly market, but we won’t be in the intra-hour market,” Haymaker said. “Are we going to be precluded from getting access to certain kinds of power from Bonneville because you’re wanting to put that into the intra-hour, or is there going to be some sort of process where we would have an opportunity to perhaps buy that power ahead of time that you were planning to offer up in the intra-hour?”

Steve Kerns, BPA’s director of grid modernization, offered a roundabout answer. After explaining that the agency already trades in a “very complex set of markets,” he recounted a previous trip to SPP, whose market participants told him that real-time bilateral markets started to “go away” after roll-out of the RTO’s Integrated Marketplace.

“That’s almost the inevitable outcome here … So that means we have to be smarter about how much we want to take to real-time,” Kerns said. “If we think that the [bilateral] market depth in general is going to be less than what it is pre-EIM, we’re going to have to make different decisions about day-ahead marketing than what we did in the past and also consider what we want to roll into the Energy Imbalance Market.”

Kerns said that, like hydro-heavy EIM member Powerex, BPA is not going to stop trading in the bilateral market. “They participate in the EIM, but they still participate in the real-time market as well.”

Haymaker expressed concern that BPA would at times “park” power, reserving it for sale into the EIM rather than making it available to its preference customers.

“We certainly don’t feel we would need to do that in order for the EIM to pencil out,” said Russ Mantifel of BPA’s transmission marketing and sales division. “Joining the EIM does not make future policy decisions about what we’re going to offer up. In order for us to achieve the benefits, I think we don’t have to make the sort of zero-sum decisions that you’re talking about here.”

Haymaker agreed that “the more markets, the better,” an acknowledgment that BPA preference customers pay lower prices for their contracted power when the agency gets higher prices for its surplus sales — which effectively subsidize preference customers.

“I think you’re going to find better pricing in the real-time market after you do this because you’ve got alternatives, so we understand that. But we want access, or the ability to compete with that intra-hour market,” Haymaker said.

“The heart of a lot of this is how do you meet your statutory obligations for both regional preference and preference for the consumer-owned utilities,” said Betsy Bridge, an attorney representing Northwest Irrigation Utilities. “It’s not a question of whether the preference customers get first dibs to that power — so it’s a balancing act. But to reiterate Tom’s point, we have to find a balance there of making sure that preference customers have the first opportunity.”

“And it’s an assumption that we will meet those obligations,” Mantifel said. “We’re confident that joining the market does not create any issues with our ability to do that and that a lot of market changes are going to make that more complicated moving forward — the proliferation of the EIM being one of them.”

Tx Questions

Anna Berg, senior manager of power supply for Snohomish County (Wash.) Public Utility District, wondered how transmission curtailments would affect resources not participating in the EIM.

“What does that look like for the rest of us who are using BPA’s point-to-point transmission or [network transmission]?” Berg asked. “So, if there’s congestion that is occurring between EIM entities, how is that resolved?”

Saying he would be “riffing a little bit” in his response, BPA’s Todd Kochheiser explained that — “where appropriate” — transmission operators would still likely curtail prior to the hour in the face of commercial congestion. But he noted that the EIM also ensures that participating balancing authorities begin the hour with adequate resources by applying a “resource sufficiency test” that also includes a transmission feasibility assessment.

“I could envision as a result of that assessment, we could potentially identify transactions or tags or base schedules that need to be adjusted, either through curtailments or some other mechanism, in order to go into each hour feasible,” Kochheiser said. “To the extent there ends up being congestion within the hour … the market will use available resources that have been bid into the market to try to resolve that congestion. Failing that, I think we would be left with no alternative other than other operational tools such as curtailments, redispatch, etc.”

Mantifel added that, “Even if you’re not participating in the market, the odds of a curtailment ought to be reduced due to the active redispatch of the market, so the market will proactively try to get the flows below whatever physical limits that we’re managing within the market.”

Lauren Tenney, senior policy analyst with the Public Power Council, asked whether BPA expected to see congestion benefits focused primarily in areas where transmission is “donated” to the EIM to facilitate transfers between BAs — known as energy transfer system resources (ETSRs) — or whether there would be enough donated transmission to spread the benefits.

Mantifel said he didn’t think there was a strong correlation between benefits and the number of ETSRs.

“The market’s always working to manage the transmission system better, even if there’s no ETSRs,” he said, adding that it’s not always clear when the EIM is just providing economic benefits rather than relieving a stressed system.

‘Sound Business Decision’

BPA’s resolve to join the EIM became evident during a hair-splitting discussion in which a few stakeholders pressed agency officials on whether the agency had already determined that it would be a “sound business decision” to join the EIM — or if that determination only extended to the signing of the non-binding implementation agreement.

“I think it is a sound business decision,” Mantifel said of joining the EIM. “I mean, this is what we’re establishing. We’ve gone through a pretty arduous process of establishing what we believe to be facts and assumptions and analysis that justify this as a sound business decision … If you think the facts are wrong, if you think they’re insufficient, if you think the analysis is wrong or insufficient in scope or detail, this is your opportunity to disagree with that.”

Stakeholders have until July 22 to submit comments on the plan.

Tenney sought to clarify whether BPA would still in some way revisit the “sound business” issue before issuing its record of decision in two years.

“If nothing changes between now and the final decision, would this issue be something that’s addressed in a final letter to the region?” she asked.

Kerns confirmed that it would, and then attempted to reframe the subject:

“If we do decide to join the Energy Imbalance Market, what strategic value do we get as being a player and helping form the markets? On the other side of the coin, what is the strategic risk to Bonneville of being potentially one of the only balancing authorities on the West Coast not participating in the market? So, I think there’s two ways to look at that.”

Solar Developer Takes on We Energies

By Amanda Durish Cook

The head of a small Iowa solar developer is prepping for a second state supreme court battle over his ability to supply electricity in a state without retail choice — after winning a similar fight in his home state.

Dubuque-based Eagle Point Solar is suing the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and We Energies to compel the utility to connect its planned, third-party rooftop solar projects for the city of Milwaukee (30701). The lawsuit may also clarify rules on what constitutes a public utility in the state.

We Energies
Barry Shear, Eagle Point Solar | Eagle Point Solar

Eagle Point CEO Barry Shear wants solar developers to be able to own projects that generate electricity for individual customers in a regulated utility’s footprint. The lawsuit cites We Energies’ refusal to honor Eagle Point’s services agreement with Milwaukee to install 1.1 MW worth of solar generation on seven city-owned buildings: three libraries, two public works buildings, a police station and a garage. We Energies refused to connect the solar projects at the distribution level, claiming sole domain over Milwaukee as an electric customer.

“We Energies is saying that a [power purchase agreement] is nothing but selling energy in their service territories. … Their position is it’s an illegal transaction even though there’s no law against it,” Shear said in an interview with RTO Insider.

Eagle Point filed the suit in Dane County Circuit Court in late May after the Wisconsin PSC voted 2-1 against hearing the matter. The commission said the dispute was better left to the state’s legislature because it triggered questions about what defines a utility. Eagle Point filed an unsuccessful appeal with the PSC in spring.

As of July 9, We Energies had not filed its response to the suit.

The agreement would have divided project ownership 80% to Eagle Point and 20% to the city, with the option for the city to purchase the full project over time. Milwaukee has since pared down the solar project to three buildings that it will self-finance, though Eagle Point could still strike a deal on the remaining buildings.

Renewable energy tax credits, like the 30% investment tax credit, are inaccessible to nonprofits and cities such as Milwaukee, which instead rely on third-party providers to attain passed-through savings.

Eagle Point has completed more than 700 solar installations totaling 17 MW. Fighting for access to a regulated utility’s territory isn’t new turf for Shear, who prevailed at the Iowa Supreme Court in a similar 2014 conflict with Alliant Energy.

Eagle Point
Wisconsin is one of 15 states that have not clarified whether they allow third-party solar power purchase agreements. | North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center’s Database of Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE)

While 26 states explicitly allow third-party solar power purchase agreements, Wisconsin is one of 15 states that have not clarified whether they allow such third-party solar arrangements, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center.

Utility, Defined?

The case could force that clarification in Wisconsin — and a more strongly defined concept of a “public utility.”

But We Energies spokesperson Brendan Conway said the law is already clear — entities cannot sell electricity to We Energies customers without first registering as a public utility.

“In Eagle Point’s case, because we already provide retail electric service to the city, Wisconsin law prohibits Eagle Point from doing so. Not only is the agreement illegal, it shifts costs to customers who are paying for the infrastructure that provides service when needed and would allow some customers to benefit from our system without paying for a portion of it,” Conway said in an emailed statement to RTO Insider.

“There is no requirement under Wisconsin law that Wisconsin Electric interconnect the facilities owned by a third party who intends to provide electric service to a retail customer already served by Wisconsin Electric,” We Energies argued in the PSC case in December.

The Sierra Club has long encouraged Wisconsin to clear up energy law so that third-party PPAs are explicitly allowed. The move would help expand clean and renewable energy use, the nonprofit claims.

100-Year-plus Case Law

Eagle Point acknowledges that only “public utilities” can sell power to the general public but claims it’s perfectly legal for it to generate for a “restricted class” of customer.

Eagle Point’s Shear is drawing on Wisconsin law and a 1911 case in which a landlord built an exclusive steam plant for tenants’ and neighbors’ use and was not deemed a public utility.

“Offering service `to or for the public’ means generating power `intended for and open to the use of all the members of the public who may require it,” the company said. “The `public’ means the public at large, not a limited subset of the public that stands in a special contractual relationship with the facility owner. By passing statutes that regulate public utilities, the Wisconsin Legislature never intended to regulate sales of electricity that serve a `limited’ or `restricted’ class of customers.”

Shear also cites a 1924 ruling in which a group of neighbors formed a co-op to construct a power line; a 1932 case over a dam Ford Motor Co. built to power an assembly plant; and another landlord case in 1967 — none of which was deemed a public utility.

Eagle Point also points out that no excess electricity would flow back onto the grid, nor would the solar arrays use We Energies’ distribution lines or other equipment to transport power.

Shear said the 1911 case has been upheld many times. “I think we have some pretty strong case law behind us,” Shear said. “The legal work has already essentially been done: If you have a single customer, you’re not a public utility.”

Shear said he considers his Wisconsin suit stronger than his Iowa case because his home state didn’t have any decided cases on what constitutes a public utility.

We Energies, Eagle Point
| Renew Wisconsin

Eagle Point also says its situation “parallels” that of a medical center that the Wisconsin PSC recently ruled could generate its own power through a subsidiary thermal company.

A representative of the Wisconsin PSC has said the agency cannot comment on pending litigation.

Unlike a regulated utility, one solar agreement with the city of Milwaukee won’t make Eagle Point a “natural monopoly,” the lawsuit argues.

Shear is also confident that Milwaukee will be perceived by the courts as a customer, not the public, despite it being a municipality.

“The city of Milwaukee is a single customer. … I’m not selling to the public. There’s a pretty clear distinction there. I’m just making this technology available to everyone in a commercially reasonable way.”

When the deal was scuttled, Shear said he was six months’ deep into engineering work and meetings with the city and We Energies engineers.

“I purchased well over $1 million [of] equipment,” he said. “I had committed my capacity to this. I wasn’t working on other projects.”

In total, Shear estimates he lost about a half-million dollars on the project. He also said Eagle Point missed out on a 2018 grant that would have been awarded had the project been completed by December as originally scheduled.

Shear said he’s fighting We Energies’ position to help cities access increasingly inexpensive renewable energy and meet carbon reduction goals.

“I want to resolve this because this has chilled dozens of municipal solar deals across Wisconsin,” Shear said.

Changing Energy Landscape

Shear says utilities are going to have to accept those in their service territories gaining the ability to generate their own electricity.

“This is a big deal. We Energies has to adapt and grow their business model to expect that their customers are going to be able to produce their own energy. That’s the way it is from here on out,” Shear said.

“They don’t own the sun,” he added after a beat.

Shear expects the battle will eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

“My operating presumption is and always has been that it’s going to end up at the state Supreme Court. … While I don’t speak for We Energies, I can’t see them giving up. I’m not giving up either.”