American Electric Power must bear the billion-dollar cost of installing scrubbers at the Rockport Generating Station in Indiana, an appellate court said, ruling in favor of the plant’s owners in a dispute over a lease contract.
A three-judge panel for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled April 14 that it’s the duty of plant operator AEP Generating ― not the plant owners’ trustee, Wilmington Trust ― to install court-ordered emissions-reducing technology at the coal-fired Rockport Unit 2 (No. 16-3496). The decision overturns an earlier district court ruling.
Rockport Unit 2 supplies about half of the output of the 2,620-MW plant on the Ohio River in southern Indiana.
Wilmington Trust charged that AEP subsidiaries Indiana Michigan Power and AEP Generating are responsible for the costs of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) device on Rockport 2 for NOx control. Under a consent decree to settle Clean Air Act violations with EPA and several other parties, the approximate $1.4 billion SCR for Rockport 2 is required by Dec. 31, 2019.
Indiana Michigan Power and AEP Generating jointly operate the two Rockport units despite the fact that AEP sold Rockport Unit 2 to a group of investors in 1989. The investors in turn leased the unit back to the AEP subsidiaries for 33 years, ending Dec. 7, 2022.
In 2013, EPA and other parties agreed to modify the consent decree to allow AEP to instead install a less expensive emissions control by April 16, 2015, and then either install the expensive scrubber, retire the plant or switch it to another fuel by the end of 2028, six years after the current lease expires.
Wilmington Trust filed suit against AEP soon after, claiming the modified consent decree breached the lease by imposing an impermissible lien and by taking an action “that materially adversely affected the economic useful life of Rockport 2.”
Clauses in the complex contract prohibit AEP from taking action that “will materially adversely affect the operation, safety, capacity, economic useful life or any other aspect of Unit 2” and from creating or incurring liens, except in certain circumstances.
The appellate judges found that AEP’s financial promises to Rockport would be empty after the lease expires and said AEP’s settlements with EPA were its own responsibility. They said applying a temporary fix and pushing back a permanent solution would make Rockport’s owners essentially “responsible for the costs associated with either upgrading Rockport 2 or shutting it down.” The lease states that the operating AEP subsidiaries are responsible for “installing, owning and operating” major environmental controls to comply with regulations.
“AEP traded away Rockport 2’s long-term value in exchange for a more favorable settlement of claims against their other interests,” the judges said of the 2013 consent decree modification. AEP had argued that deferring the scrubber’s installation was not only good for itself, but also for the owners, as either party would have several more years of profit before a scrubber was required. The judges rejected the argument, saying the plant’s owners were not part of the modification.
It’s unclear if AEP’s lease will be extended. Completed in 1989, Rockport 2 has an expected useful life anywhere through 2034 to 2049, according to the order.
Electricity customers in Los Angeles County will soon have the option to purchase their power from a new publicly run supplier that will obtain more of its energy from renewable resources.
The county’s Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 on Tuesday to establish a community choice aggregator (CCA) that will directly compete with Southern California Edison for the region’s retail, commercial and industrial customers.
The supervisors authorized initial spending of $10 million to launch the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy (LACCE) Authority, with 80% of those funds slated for procuring power, and the balance used for covering administrative costs.
The new CCA will serve electricity users in the county’s unincorporated areas, as well as incorporated cities without a municipal utility, such as Long Beach, South Pasadena and Torrance. Customers in participating areas will be automatically enrolled in the program but can opt out and maintain service with SoCalEd.
Long Beach waterfront | Visit Long Beach
Customers of the municipally owned Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Pasadena Water and Power and Burbank Water and Power will not be eligible to make the switch.
The motion voted upon by the board said the initiative will “bring significant environmental and financial benefits to the region, and reflects the growing state- and nationwide trend toward providing customer choice in the provision of electricity.”
Kuehl | campaign website
A report presented to the board last year showed that a countywide CCA would be financially viable and could provide customers power that is cheaper and “significantly greener” than that delivered by SoCalEd, an investor-owned utility serving much of the region. The county would aim to purchase 50% its energy from renewable resources, nearly double that of SoCalEd. That would reduce countywide greenhouse gas emissions by 850,000 metric tons — or 9%, the county estimates.
“There are few, if any, single actions that the county could take that would have such a large and immediate impact” on the environment, the county’s Chief Executive Office said in a report issued earlier this month.
SoCalEd said it maintains a “neutral” position on CCAs.
The county expects to roll out the CCA’s operations in three phases starting in January 2018, when the LACCE Authority will begin delivering electricity to county-run facilities in unincorporated areas.
Thomas | LA County Government
Phase two will kick off in July 2018 with the CCA offering service for commercial, industrial and municipal customers in unincorporated areas and cities that elect to become initial participants in the authority, a move that is expected to bring on about 200,000 new accounts.
A third phase launched in 2019 would begin providing service to approximately 1.5 million residential customers.
County officials began exploring the creation of an electricity provider last year. California currently has eight CCAs, with seven more scheduled to begin operations this year. A 2002 state law enabled the creation of CCAs, which rely on the existing distribution system to deliver electricity to customers.
Growth of CCAs is one factor prompting California energy officials to reconsider the idea of instituting retail choice in the state’s electricity market, an effort that was abandoned in the aftermath of the 2000/01 Western Energy Crisis. (See California to Reconsider Retail Choice.)
VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — FERC did not act on PJM’s proposed changes to its shortage pricing, so revisions for how to handle transient shortages will go into effect May 11 as planned, Manager of Real-time Market Operations Lisa Morelli told the Market Implementation Committee on Thursday. (See “Order 825 Implementation Moves Forward,” PJM Market Implementation Committee Briefs.)
The curve step changes are still on track to be implemented on July 1, but it’s unclear whether that will definitely happen.
“There’s unfortunately uncertainty [about] a lot of what’s happening at FERC right now,” PJM attorney Steve Shparber said. “We will keep going on until we hear otherwise.”
PJM’s plan would change the scarcity signal for the maximum $850 penalty factor from the economic maximum of the single largest contingency to the highest actual output of a single unit. Next, it would add two lower “steps” that would trip a $300 pricing level. One step would be calculated as the highest actual output plus 190 MW — a static number derived from the synchronous reserve mean of the Mid-Atlantic Dominion zone plus one standard deviation. The second step would be calculated as the previous step plus an extension.
PJM to Review Black Start Prior to New RFP
PJM released its first request for proposals on black start units in 2013 to have them in place by 2015. As part of that process, the RTO instituted a five-year review, meaning the next black start RFP will be in 2018 for projects to be available in 2020.
To begin that process, staff will be holding a special one-hour session after the May 2 Operating Committee meeting to review results and lessons from the first RFP. Stakeholders pointed out that that is the second day of the FERC technical conference on the impact of state policies on RTO operations in PJM, ISO-NE and NYISO (AD17-11). PJM staff promised the meeting will be quick.
Earlier in the meeting, stakeholders endorsed changes to the annual revenue requirements for black start units. PJM and its Independent Market Monitor came to an agreement on having the revenue go into a non-interest-bearing account for each unit until its costs have been approved, at which point the RTO will conduct a true-up.
MISO Independent Market Monitor David Patton on Thursday repeated his call for MISO, PJM and SPP to develop better procedures for transferring control of market-to-market constraints during high congestion.
“It would save all the RTOs a lot of money and improve efficiency,” Patton said at an April 13 Market Subcommittee meeting.
Patton pointed to the Feb. 7 transfer of a Midwest constraint to PJM that provided relief for $40 million worth of congestion. (See Tornadoes, Wind Generation Drive MISO Tx Congestion.) Market Monitor staffer Michael Wander said PJM still has monitoring control of the constraint in question, and it is not unusual for an RTO to keep control of a transferred constraint for longer periods. “They review it periodically and keep it unless there’s a change in the situation,” Wander said.
“The fact that PJM physically monitors this constraint doesn’t mean that MISO is disadvantaged in any way,” Patton told stakeholders.
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.’s Bill SeDoris asked if the Monitor is notified of the transfers.
“Not only are we appraised, we’re raising concerns when the transfer hasn’t taken place. We tend to be advocates of this,” Patton said.
The Monitor reserved his harshest criticism for existing pseudo-tie procedure.
“The only reasonable requirement in our opinion is to get rid of the pseudo-tie requirement into PJM. … The fact that anyone thinks pseudo-tying is a good idea is astounding to me,” said Patton, summarizing a Section 206 complaint the Monitor filed against PJM in early April (EL17-62). (See Pseudo-Tie Feud Rises as Patton, NYISO Protest PJM Proposal.)
Patton blasted PJM’s practice of requiring dispatch control of external generators. “This is an unprecedented requirement,” he said. All 12 MISO resources pseudo-tied into PJM were dispatched inefficiently, resulting in 114 new market-to-market constraints in 2015 and 2016, he said.
Patton encouraged stakeholders to file comments in support of his complaint.
Dynegy’s Mark Volpe asked if the spike in MISO-PJM pseudo-ties is the result of problems with MISO’s capacity market design.
“That certainly can’t be ignored,” said Patton. “But at this point, MISO’s excess capacity is a little higher than PJM’s.”
MISO: No Resettlements for Tariff Error
MISO will make a Section 205 filing seeking FERC approval for a waiver to void an eight-year-old Tariff mistake that prohibits resources incurring an excessive or deficient energy deployment charges from receiving day-ahead margin assurance payment for multiple hours.
The RTO’s Business Practices Manual only bars inefficient resources from receiving day-ahead margin assurance payment for the hour that the charge was incurred. (See MISO to Fix Recently Discovered Tariff Mistake.)
The waiver asks FERC to exclude resettlement of previous day-ahead margin assurance payments. The filing will include an affidavit from the Monitor recommending no resettlement.
“Resettlements would be extremely damaging to the market and create inefficient financial risk prospectively by undermining market confidence,” MISO said.
Bladen said there would be no technology changes to fix the mistake. “Essentially the only cost of this is administrative and legal,” he said.
Bladen also said MISO experienced a second-tier maximum generation event on April 4 in MISO South. He said MISO will review the event at the May 11 Market Subcommittee meeting. The Reliability Subcommittee will also review the event.
Expanded ELMP Price-Setting Begins May 1
MISO has filed for FERC approval to expand extended locational marginal price setting to online resources with a one-hour start-up time starting next month (ER17-1081).
The RTO will put the new eligibility into effect on May 1, Bladen said, and MISO expects to receive an order from FERC staff even without commission quorum. No one has protested the filing.
The new pricing structure preserves the requirement that offline resources must have a start time of 10 minutes or less to set prices. The move will increase the share of peaking resources eligible to set prices from 8% to 58% on a capacity basis, MISO said. (See “MISO to Expand ELMP Price Setting, but not to IMM’s Specs,” MISO Market Subcommittee Briefs.)
VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — After years of dragging the issue forward, Vitol’s Joe Wadsworth was about to see PJM stakeholders vote on schedule changes to accommodate spot-in sales between the RTO and NYISO.
But the scheduled vote at Wednesday’s Market Implementation Committee meeting was delayed after John Rohrbach of ACES said PJM’s simple solution for solving the problem would harm power sales in the South.
PJM had proposed delaying the spot-in request time by an hour to 10 a.m. across all seams, which would allow market participants looking to bring in power from NYISO the time to confirm they were approved by the ISO to export power. However, the delay causes issues along PJM’s southern border, Rohrbach argued.
The Market Implementation Committee delayed a vote on a schedule change to accommodate spot-in sales between PJM and NYISO because of concerns it could harm power sales in the south. | Monitoring Analytics
Rohrbach said that the daily sales market in southern states begins early in the morning and is generally done by 10 a.m., so any power that doesn’t receive approval for PJM spot-in service wouldn’t have another market to be sold in. At 9 a.m., however, opportunities still exist to make bilateral trades, he said.
“Today, if you don’t get spot-in, you have other opportunities,” he said. “By 9, it’s already starting to tail off. … If you wanted to change the time to 8 a.m., we’d actually be happier with that.”
The South is a thinly traded market and the vertically integrated utilities there are comfortable with their schedule, Rohrbach said. They are “guaranteed” not to conform with PJM’s proposed changes, he added.
The news wasn’t bad for Wadsworth, who had originally proposed a more complicated, market-based solution and later suggested that the time change be limited just to the NYISO seam, which was opposed by the Independent Market Monitor. NYISO had also proposed a market-based solution that PJM stakeholders rejected. (See “Vitol Accepts Simplified Solution to Spot-In Issues,” PJM Market Implementation Committee Briefs.)
“We are happy to compete in a competitive marketplace. … I was very clear that I didn’t want to make a change that would impact others,” Wadsworth said. “This kind of creates the balloon effect — squeeze the balloon at one place and it’s going to pop out at another.”
PJM’s Chris Pacella said the issue with the market-based proposals are that they will require software upgrades, which would take time and resources. Stakeholders acknowledged the challenges but urged Pacella to see if the proposal could be accommodated using the current system.
“I know it’s not your preference, but you should at least look at adjusting [PJM’s software] to try the NYISO solution without hurting the other seams,” Direct Energy’s Jeff Whitehead said.
“I certainly feel for the folks who are trying to solve this,” said Carl Johnson of the PJM Public Power Coalition. “We took on the problems serially. We haven’t invested our best problem solving techniques. I don’t think we’ve given this our best effort.”
Throughout the spot-in discussion, the Market Monitor has insisted on maintaining consistent rules across all seams, which Monitor Joe Bowring highlighted ironically by quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson: “‘Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.’” He supported considering Rohrbach’s concerns and leaving the current rules in place in the interim.
Wadsworth agreed to remove his request for a vote on the proposal, but he asked stakeholders to help him revise the problem statement. Rohrbach immediately volunteered.
Alberta-based Maxim Power announced it has closed a deal to sell its U.S. subsidiary and its five generation plants, concluding a two-year effort to stave off threats to the company’s survival.
Hull Street Energy, through its newly formed affiliate Milepost Power Holdings, paid $106 million for Maxim’s 447 MW of power generation assets in the U.S., or about $238,000/MW of generating capacity. Three of the plants are dual-fuel combined cycle plants in New England, and the others are simple cycle natural gas turbines in New Jersey and Montana.
In May 2015, Maxim reported that it had breached several financial covenants with its Canadian bank and that “significant doubt may exist with respect to the ability of the corporation to continue as a going concern.” The company said it was pursuing asset sales to improve its cash position.
The company’s outlook was not helped later in May 2015 when FERC accused it of manipulating the New England power market in a fuel-switching scheme (IN15-4). Under a consent agreement approved with FERC’s Office of Enforcement last September, Maxim agreed to pay a $4 million fine and disgorge another $4 million in earnings to ISO-NE, but it did not admit guilt. (See Maxim Power to Pay $8M to Settle Fuel-Switching Case.)
The same month, Maxim sold 176 MW of generation assets in France, its COMAX subsidiary, to an affiliate of Basalt Infrastructure for 47 million euro ($52.8 million at the time), about $300,000/MW.
Maxim said it will use $8 million (CAD) of the proceeds from the sale of its U.S. assets as collateral for letters of credit and $5 million (USD) to fulfill the settlement agreement with FERC. The company, which trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange, reported $2.2 million in net income on $94.5 million in revenue for 2016.
The assets acquired by Milepost are the 181-MW Pittsfield plant that FERC identified in the fuel-switching scheme; the 87.2-MW Forked River plant in Ocean County, N.J.; a 63.5-MW plant in Pawtucket, R.I.; the 62.1-MW CDECCA plant in Hartford, Conn.; and the 54.9-MW Basin Creek plant in Butte, Mont.
New England states will not have enough renewable resources to meet the 2025 and 2030 targets in current renewable portfolio standards without adding transmission for new onshore wind, according to a scenario analysis conducted for the New England States Committee on Electricity.
NESCOE’s Renewable and Clean Energy Mechanisms 2.0 Study used a model from London Economics to evaluate the impact of five scenarios on prices, emissions and “missing money” — the potential gap between generators’ revenues and their operating costs.
ISO-NE officials provided a briefing on the Phase I findings — part of the New England Power Pool’s Integrating Markets and Public Policy (IMAPP) initiative — at the NEPOOL Participants Committee meeting on April 7.
The results are expected to be discussed at FERC’s technical conference May 1-2 on tensions between state public policies and wholesale markets in ISO-NE, PJM and NYISO.
One scenario that considered the accelerated retirement of the region’s nuclear capacity included sensitivities based on natural gas prices. One that looked at more renewables and transmission considered several alternatives for expanded state renewable standards.
The study concluded that new renewable generation or additional clean energy imports to New England with very low marginal costs will cut energy and capacity revenues for all other resources. Nevertheless, the study noted that under every scenario considered, nuclear generators, existing oil combustion turbines, oil internal combustion turbines, oil steam and pumped storage will remain profitable in 2025 and 2030.
The study found that under base case load conditions, New England’s addition of more than 25 million MWh annually of renewable resources and/or clean energy imports by 2025 would cause existing renewable and clean energy resources to produce less power.
If the region doesn’t build new transmission to move power from new onshore wind to load centers, both new and existing onshore wind “will operate less often and earn less revenue in 2025 and 2030,” the study said.
Unsurprisingly, it also concludes that the retirement of the region’s nuclear generation would “significantly” increase carbon emissions, as would a failure to increase renewable capacity above current RPS levels.
| New England States Committee on Electricity Renewable and Clean Energy Mechanisms 2.0 Study
Phase II of the study will test the operability of each scenario and assess additional market outcomes:
Natural gas pipeline constraints, to be discussed with the Planning Advisory Committee in the second quarter;
Forward Capacity Auction prices, also to be discussed with the PAC in Q2; and
Frequency regulation, ramping and reserves, to be discussed with the PAC in the fourth quarter.
FERC last week released the agenda for the May 1-2 technical conference (AD17-11).
Before the conference, ISO-NE plans to issue a summary of its “concept for accommodating additional state-subsidized resources and their associated pricing impacts on the capacity market.” The New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners Symposium in Connecticut in May and the NEPOOL Participants Committee summer meetings may allow for additional dialogue on the concept, said Chief Operating Officer Vamsi Chadalavada.
ISO-NE likely will file any related proposals with FERC by the end of 2017 to allow for implementation ahead of FCA 13.
The grid operator also is evaluating fuel security issues and their effect on the bulk power grid and plans to discuss its findings with stakeholders during the second half of 2017.
Chadalavada also updated the Participants Committee on the Updated 2017 Work Plan, saying the RTO is considering accelerating its discussions of potential pricing approaches for resource ramping.
Previously, the grid operator had delayed the resource ramping assessment to follow both IMAPP and the day-ahead reserve market enhancement assessment. The RTO now plans to hold technical sessions on how ramping currently works and to survey how other regions are handling the issue by the fourth quarter of this year.
The COO also said ISO-NE’s 2017 long-term load, energy-efficiency and solar PV forecasts are nearly complete. “The overall trend is lower net energy and seasonal peak demand for New England,” Chadalavada said.
NEPOOL Seeks Flexibility on DA Market Schedule
The NEPOOL Participants Committee unanimously supported a Tariff revision recommended by the Transmission Committee providing more flexibility in the day-ahead market schedule.
The change eliminates the requirement that real-time external transactions at interfaces not subject to coordinated transaction scheduling be submitted into the real-time energy market before “noon the day before the Operating Day.” The new text says the deadline will be specified in Section III.1.10.1A of the Tariff.
VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — Stakeholders quickly approved administrative revisions to Manual 14B at last week’s Planning Committee meeting, but gaining endorsement for the newly developed Manual 14F is likely to be a more complex task.
The new manual will cover the competitive planning process. PJM, which has been updating the proposed language based on stakeholder feedback, asked members to submit any additional comments now so the manual will be up to date when it’s approved. The RTO called attention to its “decisional process diagram” (section 8, attachment 4). (See PJM Making Cost Consciousness a Focus for RTEP Redesign.)
“We really would like to get the comments now so we can integrate them,” said Steve Herling, vice president of planning.
Sharon Segner of LS Power questioned why provisions for cost containment aren’t thoroughly outlined and asked for a full vetting of the proposed text because there have been so many revisions.
PJM will bring the manual to the Markets and Reliability Committee on April 27 for a first read and hopes to receive endorsement in May.
Should I Stay or Should I Go? PJM Still Searching for Resolution to Interconnection Queue Issues
When PJM changed its interconnection queue processes several years ago, the purpose was to ensure everyone paid their fair share of infrastructure upgrades. Previously, whichever project triggered an upgrade would be on the hook for it, no matter how much it contributed to the problem. By having all projects wait in a six-month queue under the new rules, every request that contributed to an upgrade could contribute to paying for it.
“It seemed like a great idea that everybody would take a small piece of a $5 million impact,” said PJM’s Aaron Berner, who is leading the review of the interconnection process. “We haven’t come up with a way to fix it without switching back” to the earlier cost allocation process.
At issue is how to fairly allocate upgrade costs without unreasonably delaying project completions. Back when most projects were large-scale plants with long construction lead times, PJM instituted a rule that all projects would be held in a six-month queue to determine if any upgrades would be necessary for the requests in the queue. Upgrade costs that totaled less than $5 million were allocated to all projects upon the queue’s closure.
Because projects can be much smaller and completed much faster now, the six-month wait time can delay developers’ schedules. PJM is proposing a rule change that would allocate costs of upgrades to the first request that necessitates the spending. Any subsequent requests in the queue would contribute proportionally. (See PJM Considering Injection Rights for Demand Response.)
Returning to this “first to cause” strategy for upgrades less than $5 million has largely gone unchallenged by stakeholders in a series of discussions on the topic, which caused Carl Johnson, who represents the PJM Public Power Coalition, to question who among the stakeholders would be disadvantaged by the change back. He pointed out that there will be an unlucky project that receives the cost allocation.
“I’m curious how that will play out,” he said.
“That’s another incentive to coming in [to the request queue] early,” Berner said.
The Tariff and manual changes are on track to be implemented for the project queue that opens on Oct. 1, he said.
NYISO Changes Spur PJM Review of Emergency Import Abilities
With the termination of the decades-old wheeling service through North Jersey and the near-term retirement of the Indian Point Nuclear Station, PJM is reviewing its ability to import power during an emergency.
PJM’s Mark Sims said the study of its capacity emergency transfer objective (CETO) and capacity emergency transfer limit (CETL) tests assumes a locational deliverability area (LDA) is at a 90/10 load level and in a generation-capacity emergency — in other words when the “load is high and they’re having issues with generation,” Sims said.
To ensure the system has adequate deliverability, the CETL must be equal to or greater than the CETO. Those numbers are calculated through thermal and voltage analyses. Facilities whose outage transfer distribution factors (OTDF) are more than 5% are considered in violation, as are factors more than zero on transmission lines that are 345 kV or larger. The OTDF measures how power transfers using the infrastructure being studied impact the system during an outage.
“We need to take our objective and turn it into a simulation,” Sims said. “During [an] actual emergency, operators are going to do what they can do to keep the lights on. That’s what we’re trying to reflect.”
Solar Forecast Is Coming
Mulhern | RTO Insider
PJM is developing a solar forecast and will need to make several Tariff and manual changes to accommodate it, said Joe Mulhern, senior engineer and project manager. The move — mandated by FERC Order 764 — comes as PJM has seen solar installations take off, from virtually nothing in 2007 to approximately 1,000 MW today.
“It’s really just so we’re ahead of the curve on solar installation,” Mulhern said.
The aggregate forecast data will be available to members for operational planning, transmission outage coordination and generation offering and scheduling. The project is targeting implementation by the end of the year. It would only apply to front-of-the-meter solar generators.
The rule changes would also require real and reactive power telemetry for solar generators of 3 MW or greater. At the Operating Committee earlier in the week, American Electric Power’s Brock Ondayko asked why such plants would also be required to report temperatures from the backside of solar panels.
“If you want it, we’ll give it to you,” Ondayko said. “I don’t know if the information is going to be accurate or not. … It seems to me just because things could be available, I think PJM should have to think of why it’s necessary.”
Staff: Developers Have no Right to Retain Previously Proposed Projects
Transmission developers whose proposals don’t get approved will need to continue proposing them until the constraint disappears or risk another developer landing the project if it ever is approved, PJM staff told participants at the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting.
One stakeholder, who declined to be quoted by name, asked about a “right of first refusal” policy, noting that he noticed several new proposals that had appeared to be the same as previous proposals.
“It seems kind of unfair” that a company could have proposed a project that was rejected, only to see a “copycat” receive approval for it later, he said.
PJM’s Herling said the idea was discussed at FERC when the competitive transmission rules were being developed, and the commission specifically ruled out such a provision.
“The bottom line is we start over every time,” Herling said. “You have to propose in every window if there’s congestion to be addressed.”
RENSSELAER, N.Y. — NYISO updated stakeholders last week on its response to concerns over capacity exports, providing a status report on modeling revisions and recommending stakeholders consider broad policy changes as part of the ISO’s 2018 Project Prioritization Process.
The ISO is attempting to insulate consumers from anticipated capacity price spikes in the Lower Hudson Valley and New York City zones expected as a result of FERC’s October order allowing the 1,242-MW dual-fuel Roseton 1 generator to export some of its capacity to ISO-NE. The plant, 43 miles north of New York City, is in the import-constrained G-J locality.
In January, FERC approved NYISO’s plan to change its capacity market rules to recognize the impact of counterflows. The new rules use a “locality exchange factor” to reflect how much capacity from “rest of state” can replace capacity exported from an import-constrained locality. The prior rules assumed that 100% of a generator’s exports from an import-constrained area must be replaced with generation in that locality.
ISO officials now are working with General Electric to develop a probabilistic approach to determining the locality exchange factor. The new methodology could replace the deterministic method designed last year and approved by FERC.
Emilie Nelson, vice president of market operations, told the April 12 Business Issues Committee meeting that “the subject is proving more complicated than expected.”
GE presented its proposed methodology and export topologies at the March 22 meeting of the Installed Capacity Working Group. It is expected to present preliminary results of its analysis at the working group’s April 19 meeting.
NYISO Zones F&G to ISO-NE | General Electric presentation to NYISO Installed Capacity Working Group, March 22, 2017
By June 1, the ISO plans to file an informational report with FERC outlining work that will remain to be done after that date.
NYISO recommended stakeholders consider the topics of capacity imports, payments to capacity-exporting generators and capacity resource interconnection service in the 2018 Project Prioritization Process, which allows stakeholders and the ISO to rank proposed initiatives against one another based on expected benefits and costs. The initial list of project candidates and descriptions will be on the agenda at the Budget & Priorities Working Group meeting April 26.
Every four years, the American Society of Civil [not Electrical] Engineers releases its Chicken Little report on American infrastructure.[1] The report says our energy infrastructure — the second largest category after roads and bridges — should get a D+.
Huntoon
I don’t know if the rest of the infrastructure sky is falling,[2] but when it comes to electric infrastructure, most everything in the report is wrong.[3] [To see ASCE’s response, click here.]
For starters, there is this claim: “With more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines across the three interconnected electric transmission grids … the lower 48 states’ power grid is at full capacity, with many lines operating well beyond their design.”
The fact is that 0 (zero) transmission lines are being operated beyond their design capacity. The grid has been and continues to be designed and constructed to cover projected peak demand years in advance. And every line is operated within its design limits. The ASCE claim is alarmist and wrong.
Then there is this: “Often a single line cannot be taken out of service to perform maintenance as it will overload other interconnected lines in operation.”
Hello, this is why most maintenance is performed in off-peak months — as has been done for decades.
And this: “As a result of aging infrastructure, severe weather events, and attacks and vandalism, in 2015 Americans experienced a reported 3,571 total outages, with an average duration of 49 minutes.”
Whoa! “Total outages” is outages, large and small, across the entire country. The total number of people claimed to be affected? 13.2 million out of America’s 325 million population.[4] The average number of people affected per outage? 3,714. Yes, less than 4,000 people per outage. For an average duration of 49 minutes.
And what portion of these 3,571 outages is even attributable to allegedly overloaded infrastructure, the gravamen of the ASCE report? According to ASCE’s own data, a mere nine (yes, nine) outages are attributed to “overdemand.”[5] Major outage causes are weather and trees at 1,069, faulty equipment and human error at 942, vehicle accidents at 419, squirrels at 89, etc.
So much for the present.
As for the future, the report relies on an obsolete projection of future electric demand. Increased efficiency and distributed energy resources, among other factors, have caused the U.S. Energy Information Administration to halve projected growth between 2016 to 2025, from ASCE’s assumed 8% to the current 4%.[6] Using ASCE’s methodology, it means “needing” $467 billion instead of $934 billion over the next 10 years.
ASCE projects spending of $757 billion, so under ASCE’s own methodology, using the current EIA growth projection, we will be spending hundreds of billions more than we need to.
There’s more. Buried in the study is an implicit assumption that the efficiency of electric generation is static; in other words, the capital cost of generating electricity remains constant, so we have to keep deploying the same dollars of investment per unit of increased electric demand.
The fact is that competitive market forces inexorably force down costs and thereby prices. Recent years have seen significant increases in the efficiency of natural gas generation and reductions in the cost of new electric generation capacity.[7] In other words, we are generating more electricity per dollar of capital investment.
Finally, the report doesn’t recognize differences in how infrastructure decisions are made in this county. Other infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, do compete with other governmental spending priorities in political decisions by federal, state and local elected officials.
Electric infrastructure investment is not a political decision. It is determined by long-term planning criteria overseen in large part by independent regional (RTOs) and national (NERC) organizations, that in turn are overseen by an independent, highly regarded federal agency (FERC).[8]
Our electric infrastructure deserves an A.
Let’s save the D+ for the ASCE report.
Steve Huntoon is a former president of the Energy Bar Association, with 30 years of experience advising and representing energy companies and institutions. He received a B.A. in economics and a J.D. from the University of Virginia. He is the principal in Energy Counsel.
[6]EIA’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook projects electricity sales in 2025 of 3,892 billion kWh, which is about a 4% increase over 2016 sales of 3,727 billion kWh.
[8]There are some states where reliability is more state-overseen than federal. Yes, state commissions face some political pressure to keep rates down … but even more to not have outages.
America’s Energy Infrastructure: Room for Improvement
By Chuck Hookham, Otto J. Lynch and Adrienne Nikolic
The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 150,000 members design, build, operate and maintain infrastructure in the U.S. and globally. While roads and bridges are often the first thing to come to mind when hearing the word “infrastructure,” civil engineers also ensure Americans have access to reliable, low-cost energy from its roots (oil/gas wells, electric generation, etc.) to its delivery at the pump or outlet. As an example, each transmission line is essentially a suspension bridge of steel, concrete, wood, cable and other materials, requiring surveying, site work, foundations, structures and construction — all areas of expertise for civil engineers, working in conjunction with other engineering disciplines.
Who better to assess the health of the nation’s energy infrastructure than civil engineers?
That’s why, since 2001, ASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card has included energy infrastructure, with particular emphasis on electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure. Released every four years, the Report Card follows the familiar A-to-F format of a school report card, grading 16 categories of infrastructure. Prepared by a team of civil engineers with expertise across all categories, the Report Card serves as an unbiased, go-to source for information on the state of the nation’s infrastructure, and has been cited by U.S. presidents, countless elected officials at all levels of government, academics and media outlets.
Unfortunately, much like the overall grade across all 16 categories, the energy grade has been stalled in the D’s. In the 2017 Report Card, ASCE graded the nation’s infrastructure a D+ and energy also received a D+ — both the same as in 2013.
To determine the grades, we assess relevant data and reports, consult with technical and industry experts, and assign grades using the following key criteria: capacity, condition, funding, future need, operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience and innovation.
While U.S. energy systems are sufficient to meet the country’s projected energy needs, the 2017 Report Card highlights both issues of concern and potential solutions. Most existing power lines were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a 50-year life expectancy, meaning they were not designed to meet today’s significant demand or the evolving need to integrate distributed energy resources. While projections for energy consumption indicate only modest increases between 2015 and 2040,[1] the country still faces significant challenges in ensuring energy is available where it is needed, including transmitting energy from renewable sources to population centers. We cannot build a new wind farm in Kansas and expect the power to just magically appear in New York.
Aging lines and equipment in America’s multiple power grids are operating well beyond their designed maximum operating temperature and peak load, and congestion creates transmission constraints for delivering power from remote generation sites to areas of demand, also affecting reliability and cost of service.[2] NERC’s standards for tree clearance and vegetation only go so far when confronting increasing extreme weather events and exposure to human threats. And just as one closed road causes traffic jams, one power line outage can affect transmission and distribution to millions. Because of a lack of storage and near constant demand, the interruption of any energy system is immediately felt by the user.
While there are certainly more potholes in America’s roads than there are estimated power outages each year, loss of electric power or gas flow through a major pipeline causes a ripple effect on Americans’ daily lives and the economy. The U.S. energy system is the critical infrastructure that keeps America’s lights on, transportation moving and information flowing. Yet the current system in many parts of the country is not adequately resilient and efforts to change that through investment and improvement are highly politicized, often caught up in larger debates about climate change, fuels and national security.
As part of the Report Card, ASCE also commissioned an independent economic analysis of the investment needs and consequences across 10 sectors of infrastructure, including electricity, by a well-respected economic research group. The series, titled “Failure to Act,” was first released in 2011 but was updated in 2016.[3][4] The 2016 study examines the investment needs, projected funding and remaining gap for building new infrastructure as well as maintaining or rebuilding existing infrastructure. The analysis also presumes the mix of generation technologies and sources continues to evolve, resulting in new efficiencies and approaches for meeting demand. The study concluded that in electricity, while the investment gap totals $177 billion between 2016 and 2025, more than 80% of the total infrastructure investment needs are projected to be funded, thanks in no small part to the significant involvement of the private sector in the nation’s energy systems.
No American who has experienced an extended electrical outage, lost appliances because of a power surge or seen downed wires in their neighborhood would grade our electric infrastructure an A, nor do the engineers who design, build and desire to maintain that infrastructure day in and day out.
Chuck Hookham, P.E., M.ASCE, is director of NBD services at CMS Energy, a large regulated electric/gas utility and non-regulated developer of energy projects, headquartered in Jackson, Mich. He has more than 35 years of experience in power generation, transmission and distribution, natural gas and oil pipelines and refineries, and infrastructure systems, and is a member of the ASCE Committee on America’s Infrastructure, which prepared the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card.
Otto J. Lynch, P.E., F.ASCE, F.SEI, is vice president of Power Line Systems Inc. in Nixa, Mo. For more than 28 years, he has participated in the design and construction of numerous high-voltage transmission line projects around the world and was a pioneer in the use of LiDAR in the transmission line industry. He is a member of the ASCE Committee on America’s Infrastructure, which prepared the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card.
Adrienne Nikolic, P.E., M.ASCE, is an energy and utilities consultant based in Philadelphia, Pa. She is responsible for assisting energy and utility clients with the management of projects that modernize the grid, and is a member of the ASCE Committee on America’s Infrastructure, which prepared the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card.
[3] American Society of Civil Engineers. Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Electricity Infrastructure. 2011. http://www.asce.org/electricity_report/
