Search
`
November 5, 2024

Posted on

FERC Approves Revisions to SPP GI Process

FERC on Tuesday accepted SPP tariff revisions that clarify its interconnection (IC) customers’ financial security refunds, effective April 1, 2023, and subject to a compliance filing within 30 days of the order (ER23-841).

The commission found SPP demonstrated that the revisions are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential and would comply with FERC’s rulemakings concerning the pro forma generator interconnection procedures (GIPs) and agreements.

Under the revisions, SPP will determine whether an interconnection customer withdrawing its request after the first two decision points of the RTO’s three-phase GI study process is subject to forfeiting its financial security. SPP will evaluate the withdrawal’s effect on upgrade costs for “equally- or lower-queued” IC requests within the “actively studied clusters.”

FERC said the revisions “therefore clarify which interconnection requests are evaluated in SPP’s impact analysis.” It said the revisions improve certainty for IC customers, meeting the purposes of its pro forma GI procedures and agreements rulemaking.

In addition, SPP proposes revisions to GIP section 8.14(e) to apply the financial security forfeiture exemptions in GIP section 8.14(d) to interconnection requests that are subject to any restudies after Decision Point 2 that are performed in accordance with GIP sections 8.8 and 8.13.

The proposed revisions to GIP section 8.14(e) also provide that if an interconnection request is restudied and it meets the forfeiture exceptions under GIP section 8.14(d), the IC customers will have 15 business days after the restudy results are posted to decide whether to withdraw requests. The commission said the 15-day deadline “should help streamline the study process” by encouraging IC customers to make timely decisions about whether they intend to proceed to the next study stage after a restudy.

“We find that the proposed revisions … strike a reasonable balance between giving an interconnection customer an opportunity to withdraw from the queue without forfeiture of the [security] payments if allocated upgrade costs significantly increase after a restudy and allowing SPP to administer its queue in an efficient and timely manner,” FERC said.

Several renewable energy developers protested SPP’s proposal when it was filed in January, saying it reduces an IC customer’s ability to have its posted financial security refunded when withdrawing due to a substantial increase in allocated upgrade costs. They argued that the proposed revisions unreasonably deny IC customers the opportunity to claim a forfeiture exemption if the grid operator revises its second phase’s results without a restudy.

The commission approved SPP’s three-phase IC study process in 2019. (See FERC OKs New SPP Interconnection Process.)

Posted on

NYISO Stakeholders Still Questioning Interconnection Queue Proposal

ALBANY, N.Y. — NYISO on Thursday sought once again to clarify its Class Year queue window concept and assuage stakeholder concerns expressed in previous meetings about the proposed changes to the interconnection study process.

Thinh Nguyen, NYISO senior manager of interconnection projects, told members of the Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee that “we want to make sure that we’re reducing [interconnection] timelines and that this is an ongoing discussion amongst stakeholders.”

Stakeholders, however, remained skeptical and had many unresolved questions.

“We’ve been pointing out each time we have these meetings that we need a focused presentation on how much of our extra work translates into extra benefit,” said Mark Reeder, representing the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, referring to how the new construct would have developers complete many pre-application requirements before being able to join, which has caused confusion.

Comparison of NYISO’s current and proposed interconnection queue concepts | NYISO

This comment was representative of the struggle stakeholders have expressed previously to NYISO, as the ISO has reworked the proposal throughout the year. (See NYISO’s Latest Queue Overhaul Draft Confuses Stakeholders.)

Stakeholders still wanted more clarity about many parts of the concept, including project prioritization and potential off-ramps for large generators.

Doreen Saia, an attorney with Greenberg Traurig, asked about project prioritization and whether Group A projects that finish their cluster feasibility studies could be impacted by the feasibility results of Group B projects.

“Group A projects have priority against Group B. So, when you add Group B into the Class Year study, if there’s a problem, then Group A has a much higher priority,” Nguyen responded.

“I am worried that you could inadvertently undervalue the whole [concept],” Saia followed up. “If Group A projects do great, but then Group B projects come out and it is an unholy mess, [developers] may now decide they aren’t willing to agree to new costs 90 days after their initial costs for Group A projects were determined.”

Reeder asked whether NYISO has begun considering allowing off-ramps for large-scale projects that want to withdraw from the queue after discovering they might be infeasible. NYISO currently allows only small generators to withdraw from the queue without penalty.

Nguyen responded, “This is still on the table, but we’re still going to have to think about that.” Nguyen added that NYISO is aware that there are many circumstances in which a large-scale generator may need to withdraw for valid reasons.

NYISO will refine the proposal until the fall, when it will begin vetting tariff language with TPAS. It asked that comments or questions be sent by July 21 so they can be incorporated into the next meeting presentation Aug. 1.

Posted on

ACEEE Report: Some States not Taking EVs Seriously

President Joe Biden wants 50% of all new car sales across the U.S. to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030, and according to a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), meeting that goal could require a nationwide network of 28 million charging ports, the majority of which would be located at single family homes.

Intended as a basic needs assessment, the 2030 National Charging Network report estimates 26.8 million Level 1 and Level 2 (L2) charging ports will be needed at single family homes, multifamily dwellings and workplaces. Another one million L2s should be installed in publicly accessible locations near homes and workplaces ― for example, in urban neighborhoods and at retail outlets ― while 182,000 DC fast chargers would be located along highway corridors and in rural or remote communities.

“In contrast to gas stations, which typically require dedicated stops to public locations, the [plug-in EV] charging network has the potential to provide charging in locations that do not require an additional trip or stop. Charging at locations with long dwell times (at/near home, work or other destinations) has the potential to provide drivers with more convenient experiences,” the report says.

But DC fast chargers are critical for “long-distance travel and ride-hailing, and to make electric vehicle ownership attainable for those without reliable access [to] charging while at home or at work,” a demographic that could represent about 3 million vehicles by 2030, the report says.

The report projects those chargers could be powering anywhere between 30 million and 42 million EVs but bases its topline calculations on a “mid-adoption scenario” of 33 million EVs on the road by 2030. The price tag has an even wider range, between $53 billion and $127 billion, due to “variable and evolving equipment and installation costs observed within the industry across charging networks, locations and site designs,” the report says.

The big numbers in NREL’s needs assessment are daunting in the face of current figures from the Department of Energy, counting about 140,500 publicly accessible charging ports spread across 54,200 locations. State and local policies could play a major role in bridging that gap, but according to a second report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), planning for EV adoption and charging in many states is moving at a crawl.

The 2023 State Transportation Electrification Scorecard ranks states across a range of EV policies — from planning to consumer incentives to utility policies and grid optimization. The highest possible score is 100, but ACEEE found 17 states with so few points, they weren’t included on the scorecard. Only nine states scored more than 50.

California (88 points) took the No. 1 spot, followed by New York (62) and Colorado (61). Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, New Jersey, the District of Columbia and Oregon all scored in the 50s.

“We are seeing incremental progress, not transformational progress. States will have to move far more aggressively to do their part to enable the electric vehicle transition that the climate crisis demands,” said Peter Huether, senior research associate at ACEEE and lead author of the report. “Auto manufacturers are expanding their EV options and consumers are increasingly choosing them, but supportive state policies are needed to ensure that the electric grid is ready and that all households and businesses, including those in underserved communities, can use EVs and have adequate access to charging.”

The challenges ahead for a build-out of charging infrastructure include a lack of regulations that require both utility planning and the adoption of EV-ready building codes, according to the ACEEE report. Less than half of the states are requiring utilities to plan for the installation of chargers, both private and public, though many utilities are planning for EV charging, Huether said.

Even fewer states ― 12 in all ― have EV-ready building codes, for example, mandating that new construction either be wired for or include charging stations. Having the wiring for charging built in will be especially important for multifamily housing, where residents may be wholly dependent on public chargers.

A Patchwork of State Policies

The transportation sector accounts for the largest portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions ― 28% versus 25% for the electric power industry, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Biden has made transportation electrification a cornerstone of his drive to reduce the country’s GHG emissions 50% to 52% by 2030, in line with his commitment under the Paris climate accords. Major automakers have followed suit with commitments to sell increasing numbers of electric vehicles within the next 10-20 years.

General Motors has pledged to go all electric by 2035, while Ford has said it is targeting 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030.

California also has set the pace with its Advanced Clean Cars II rule, requiring all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in the state to be electric or zero-emission by 2035. Five states — Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — also have adopted the rule.

But outside these states — all in ACEEE’s top nine — what both reports show is a patchwork of EV adoption and charger installation across the country, with a range of variables either accelerating or slowing down electrification of the transportation sector.

For example, the NREL report calls for 182,000 DC fast chargers on highways versus the 500,000 goal Biden set for the National Electric Vehicle Initiative (NEVI) program funded with $5 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Initially, the proposed guidelines for NEVI called for all chargers funded by the program to be at least 150-kW DC fast chargers, but the final guidelines issued in March allow a mix of fast and L2 chargers, reflecting trends in EV adoption and charger use.

Eric Wood, a senior EV charging infrastructure researcher at NREL, said the charging network study “exhaustively considers how people in the U.S. use light-duty cars to travel, what their energy needs are for that travel, and how we can meet those needs, given projected EV adoption rates.”

“Detailed transportation data … enabled the team to answer questions like: How will EV adoption in neighboring states impact the demand for public fast charging along highway corridors in my area? And how might that out-of-state demand compare to charging needs from residents in my area?” Wood said in a blog post on the report.

The report itself points out that while prospective EV buyers prioritize the availability of fast chargers, “consumer preferences tend to shift after an [EV] purchase is made and lived experience with charging is accumulated. Home charging has been shown to be the preference of many [EV] owners due to its cost and convenience.

“This dichotomy suggests that reliable fast charging is key to consumer confidence, but also that a successful charging ecosystem will provide the right balance of fast charging and convenient destination charging in the appropriate locations,” the report says.

Balancing of the supply of chargers with the deployment of EVs is another critical issue that must be worked out on the local level, the report says. “Actual charging infrastructure will likely be necessary before demand for charging materializes.” Having chargers on the road is, again, essential for building consumer confidence, but “infrastructure investment should be careful not to lead vehicle deployment to the point of creating prolonged periods of poor utilization, thereby jeopardizing the financial viability of infrastructure operators,” the report says.

Oklahoma Most Improved

The uneven distribution of EVs and EV chargers will likely continue, according to the NREL report. Looking ahead to 2030, the report estimates that California will have more than 7.3 million EVs on the road and 262,100 publicly accessible L2 chargers versus Wyoming, which will have 50,000 EVs and 2,100 public chargers.

ACEEE’s Huether said he hopes the combination of industry commitments and federal action – like NEVI and the EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act – will spur more states to start planning.

Certainly, population numbers and demographics are central factors for some states, but “there are states that are just not taking transportation electrification seriously,” he said in an interview with NetZero Insider. “Maybe that’s because they don’t see it as much in their state, or they don’t recognize the benefits as much.”

Although many of the low-scoring states have Republican-dominated governments, Huether said the split between high- and low-scoring states on the scorecard is not purely political. “Oklahoma was our most-improved state in terms of rank,” he said, moving up eight spots. The state has the highest proportion of DC fast chargers per capita and has “done a lot of work around electric school buses,” he said.

Another anomaly, particularly in the Southeast, is the split between the billions of dollars in incentives states have offered to EV and EV battery plants to locate there and their low rank on the scorecard. According to ACEEE, Georgia leads the list with $3.6 billion in subsidies to manufacturers but is No. 32 out of 33 on the scorecard.

States like Georgia are “spending a lot of money to attract these companies [but] they’re not setting up their state, setting up drivers in their state to really benefit,” Huether said. “They recognize maybe the broader economic manufacturing benefits, but not the benefits of having those vehicles in their state. We really implore them to be clear, more proactive in adopting some of these policies.”

Posted on

Former Ohio House Speaker Householder Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison

A federal judge in Cincinnati sentenced former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder (R) to 20 years in prison Thursday for taking bribes from FirstEnergy to pass legislation subsidizing the company’s nuclear plants.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Black ordered Householder handcuffed before deputies took him from the courtroom despite a request by his attorney to allow him to report to prison later.

Householder asked the judge for clemency on behalf of his family before he was sentenced. He is expected to appeal. Federal prosecutors asked for the maximum sentence of 16 to 20 years. Co-conspirator Matt Borges, a former Ohio Republican Party chairman, is scheduled to appear before Black for sentencing Friday.

“Larry Householder led a criminal enterprise responsible for one of the largest public corruption conspiracies in Ohio history,” U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Parker said in a statement following the hearing. “Elected officials owe a duty to provide honest services to their constituents — transparency, integrity and accountability are foundational principles of democracy. Householder once held one of the three most powerful offices in the state of Ohio. Now, because of his corruption, he will serve a substantial prison sentence.”

“The people of Ohio are the true victims of Larry Householder’s corrupt scheme to increase his power and pass a billion-dollar corporate bailout,” FBI Cincinnati Special Agent in Charge Will Rivers said. “While we hope this sentence clearly demonstrates that corruption does not pay, the FBI will continue to investigate and pursue those who abuse their positions and take advantage of the public.”

A jury in March found Householder and Borges guilty of racketeering conspiracy charges connected to a yearslong conspiracy orchestrated with FirstEnergy. (See Householder Convicted in FirstEnergy Bribery Case.) Both men have been free on bond.

The arrangement enabled the speaker to funnel cash through two dark money groups to fund the election campaigns of allies in both chambers of the legislature who favored a public bailout of the company’s uncompetitive Ohio nuclear power plants.

Lawmakers approved the legislation, House Bill 6, in July 2019. Householder and the company, again using dark money connections, defeated a ballot issue nullifying the legislation. A federal grand jury indicted Householder and four others in July 2020. The legislature later removed the nuclear subsidy from the law but kept an unrelated subsidy for two 70-year-old coal power plants on the Ohio River.

Despite moving the ownership of the nuclear plants to a subsidiary several years earlier, FirstEnergy had sought ratepayer funding for them as early as 2014 in a case before the Public Utilities Commission until FERC intervened. The company’s lobbying efforts for legislation creating a public subsidy died in legislative committees.

FirstEnergy, identified as “Company A” in the 2020 indictment, denied wrongdoing but then agreed to pay a $230 million fine in a deferred prosecution agreement. (See DOJ Orders $230 Million Fine for FirstEnergy.) Former CEO Charles Jones and Michael Dowling, senior vice president of external affairs, were fired in October 2020.

The federal probe also prompted the company to reorganize its board of directors, creating a watchdog committee to investigate top management’s ethical practices. Several other senior managers have since been fired.

“Millions of Ohio utility consumers are seeing a measure of justice today, regarding the tainted House Bill 6, with the federal judge’s sentencing of the former speaker of the House,” Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Bruce Weston said in a statement. “But more justice needs to be served. More justice should include the legislature repealing the coal power plant subsidies that the scandalous legislation still requires Ohioans to pay to AEP, Duke and AES.

“More justice also should include the [Public Utilities Commission of Ohio] lifting its stay on our and others’ investigations into any improper charges to consumers by FirstEnergy.”

Posted on

Interconnection Costs on the Rise, Berkeley Lab Study Finds

Interconnection costs are on the rise across the U.S., according to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analysis of thousands of projects in five organized electricity markets.

The team manually scraped cost estimates from 2,500 interconnection studies from ISO-NE, MISO, NYISO, PJM and SPP, LBNL policy researcher Joachim Seel said during a webinar Thursday. CAISO has stronger data privacy rules than others, while ERCOT uses a “connect and manage” system that limits the amount of upgrades developers must pay for. Non-RTO regions generally do not release such information.

“Collecting this cost data has been quite difficult as the cost estimates are often the only available interconnection study PDFs, [and] that required time-intensive manual scraping,” Seel said. “We’ve cleaned and sanitized the data and made much of the underlying project cost data available on our website. And to our knowledge, this is really the first time that this data can be easily accessed.”

The data collection was partially funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X) process, said DOE’s Cynthia Bothwell, who helps run the exchange created to enable simpler, faster and fairer interconnection of clean energy resources.

“The motivation for the cost analysis that you’re going to hear about more today was that we found it very hard to get information,” Bothwell said. “Developers said, ‘You know, we don’t know how much things cost, [or] where we can interconnect, and a lot of other issues.”

While the data was public, it was not easy to gather — taking hundreds of worker hours per market to compile. Now the industry will have a central place to look up interconnection cost information, she said.

The LBNL team plans to continue collecting data, including eventually from CAISO and traditionally regulated utilities, and performing additional analyses, Seel said. While costs have been trending up, they vary greatly by project type and other factors, meaning they are “not normally distributed,” he said.

“There are many projects with rather low interconnection costs, but also some projects with very high interconnection costs,” he said. “And although these high-cost projects may be fewer in number, their high project costs can influence the sample mean quite a bit and pull it upward.”

Out of the projects that have made it through PJM’s queue since 2017, nearly 120 had interconnection costs of $25/kW, but some were several times higher than that — with a few at $450/kW.

Costs have been on the rise over time, and LBNL broke down projects by complete, pending and withdrawn, with those pulling out of the process having the highest average costs and completed projects the lowest, Seel said.

Newer projects must generally pay for more broad transmission network upgrades triggered by reliability or stability violations found in the modeling of the proposed resource. That could involve reconstruction of high-voltage transmission lines as renewables are often in more rural areas where the grid is weaker.

Breaking Down by Project Type

The analysis also found differences among technologies, with solar costs remaining fairly consistent across regions, and completed projects spending between 5% and 10% of their total capital on interconnection upgrades, while withdrawn projects faced interconnection costs comprising 20% to 40% of their total capex.

Storage projects also face high costs, which Seel said could be due to their being built in congested parts of the grid to benefit from energy arbitrage opportunities.

Onshore wind has greater variation, with completed projects spending between 3% and 16% of their total budgets on interconnection and withdrawn projects 10% to 40%.

The onshore wind numbers were particularly skewed by ISO-NE, where nearly all proposals since 2018 have withdrawn after facing huge interconnection costs that run up to $800/KW, LBNL’s Julie Kemp said.

“For onshore wind, all of the recent projects are located in Maine, and many of them are in quite remote areas where the existing transmission system is pretty limited,” said Kemp. “And, so, these high costs that we see are the result of the significant buildup that would be required to connect substantial new generation in these areas that currently do not have much load or much generation.”

An LBNL graphic showed the highest interconnection costs for wind in Aroostook County in the state’s far north, where the limited transmission system is not even operated by ISO-NE, but rather the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator.

Posted on

NJ Lawmakers Back Ørsted’s Tax Credit Plea

New Jersey legislators this week backed a measure to allow the state’s first offshore wind project, Ocean Wind 1, to receive federal tax credits to help offset construction cost hikes, advancing the legislation forward in what state officials said was a “critical” element needed to get the project completed.

The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee and Assembly Budget Committee on Tuesday each approved a version of the bill (S4019 and A5651) that will allow the credits to go to developer Ørsted instead of the state. The Assembly committee voted on the bill again Wednesday to reconcile differences between each house’s version after the Senate committee made amendments. To arrive at the desk of Gov. Phil Murphy, the bill now needs full Assembly and Senate votes, which likely will take place Friday before the Legislature recesses until November.

The Senate committee voted at the end of a six-hour meeting with lengthy breaks while lawmakers negotiated amendments they said were designed to strengthen the requirements on Ørsted. The changes included requiring a $200 million cash escrow fund put up by the developer that New Jersey can spend on other wind-related projects.

Unlike those in other states, New Jersey law prohibits developers from obtaining federal tax credits for offshore wind projects, and instead grants the benefits of the credits to the state to help ratepayers.

The hearing offered a snapshot of the vigorous debate over offshore wind, with opponents saying the turbines would blight the state’s much-prized shore; damage local beaches, historic landmarks, and the tourism and fishing industries; and hurt marine life. Proponents said the advance of Ocean Wind 1 is essential to the state’s plan, backed by more than $600 million, to create a homegrown industry that will create jobs and be a major economic driver.

“There is a looming and booming offshore wind energy industry coming to life in the North Atlantic,” Tim Sullivan, CEO of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA), said at the hearing. “In the bill before you is an incredibly important milestone on that journey.”

He described the bill as “critical to getting the first project unlocked, and under construction and developed.”

“This is a bit of a gut-check moment: Does New Jersey want to lead?” he said. Or does the state want to “follow … to be left out of the jobs and economic opportunity and prosperity that offshore wind represents?”

Sen. Michael L. Testa Jr. (R) responded by suggesting that the state should consider the potential harm of the wind projects on the shore’s tourism and commercial and recreational fishing sectors, and whether the preliminary exploration for the OSW project was somehow linked to the deaths of whales that have washed up on the New Jersey shore.

“Certainly I always want New Jersey to be at the forefront of very positive changes and innovation,” he said. But he suggested the state should “take a pause” in the OSW projects. He noted that several federal and state lawmakers have called for a moratorium on the projects until the whale deaths are fully investigated.

“They’re not kooks; they’re people that are really concerned about preserving New Jersey,” Testa said.

State and federal officials say there is no evidence linking the whale deaths to the wind projects, for which construction has yet to start, and the investigations are ongoing.

Rising Costs

The legislation allows federal tax credits to flow only to offshore wind projects approved before July 1, 2019. That effectively limits the benefits to the 1.1-GW Ocean Wind 1 project, which the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) approved in its first solicitation in 2019.

The board approved two more projects in 2021 — the 1,148-MW Ocean Wind 2 and 1,510-MW Atlantic Shores — in a second solicitation. In March, it launched a third solicitation, which could result in the award of capacity totaling 4 GW or more. (See NJ Opens Third OSW Solicitation Seeking 4 GW+.)

Ørsted has said since that the approval, materials, equipment and transportation costs have risen dramatically because of a variety of unanticipated events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Maddy Urbish, the company’s head of government affairs and market strategy, said in a statement after the hearing that “these federal incentives present an opportunity for the state to further secure economic investments and create hundreds of family-sustaining jobs in New Jersey while addressing the unprecedented macroeconomic challenges of today, at no additional cost to ratepayers.”

“As the state’s first offshore wind project, Ocean Wind 1 is critical to helping New Jersey achieve its clean energy goals,” she said, adding that Ørsted is “focused on identifying opportunities to advance the American offshore wind industry locally.”

But Kristen O’Rourke, quality of life director at Point Pleasant Beach, questioned the fairness of the plan, saying nearby businesses, many of them small and family owned, face potential losses because of the impact on tourism and fishing.

“We’re the ones who are also facing fiscal instability over inflation [and] supply chain issues that Ørsted’s facing,” she said. “We’re all on the same page here, but we’re not receiving a tax credit for it.”

In a letter to both committees Monday, the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel urged them not to advance the bill, saying, “Statements claiming that this bill will not cost ratepayers additional costs are inaccurate.”

Director Brian O. Lipman said that under the 2019 deal struck by Ørsted and the BPU, the cost to the state of the offshore wind renewable energy certificates (ORECs) awarded to the developer is offset by tax credits earned by the developer.

“To the extent that the developer keeps the tax credit, the reduction in the OREC is decreased — leading to higher OREC prices for ratepayers,” Lipman wrote. “There should be no doubt that this bill will increase the amount the developer earns on this project and will result in higher OREC prices being paid by ratepayers.”

Competitive Dynamic

The bill requires Ørsted to issue a report on the project’s anticipated environmental impacts, economic benefits and financial viability, and the feasibility of completing it by the commercial operation date approved by the board.

The bill’s escrow requirement replaces an earlier requirement that the $200 million be a letter of credit. The escrow can be used to help fund the New Jersey Wind Port, a manufacturing, marshaling and wind logistics hub in Salem County, and the port and wind manufacturing facility at the Paulsboro Marine Terminal.

The EDA’s Sullivan said the funds would likely be used for a second phase of the manufacturing operation at Paulsboro that German manufacturer EEW is building to make monopoles. Ørsted is sourcing monopoles for Ocean Wind 1 at the plant and has invested in it, according to a recent report by the Sweeney Center for Public Policy at Rowan University.

Sen. Paul Sarlo (D), chairman of the Senate committee, said the amendments made it a “much better piece of legislation.”

At Sarlo’s prompting, Sullivan confirmed that there had been no other state payments to the project and would be no more. “This will be the last push that they will need to get out of the ground,” he said.

Rumors that Ørsted was negotiating with Gov. Murphy and legislators on the bill had been circulating in Trenton for weeks. Sarlo had said at a May 23 hearing of the committee that he would resist additional subsidies to offshore wind developers, saying, “These are large players, international players, who knew what they were getting into when they built these facilities.” (See NJ OSW Projects Face Public Funding Scrutiny.)

Sullivan said the state’s investment in the wind port and Paulsboro terminal would make New Jersey a major player in the regional wind industry, enabling the state to supply offshore wind services, logistics and products to not only its own projects, but also others along the East Coast.

“The competitive dynamic here is real,” he said. “Other states want this just as badly or worse than we do.”

Speaking before he voted for the bill Tuesday, Sen. Steve Oroho (R) asked Sullivan what the impact would be if Ocean Wind 1 did not go ahead and Ørsted did not put the $200 million in escrow. Would that mean that “a revenue-generating project” would be at risk of “not being a revenue-generating project?” he asked.

After Sullivan affirmed that could be the case, Oroho said that though he had originally opposed the bill, he would back it in the committee. But he may not do so in the vote by the full Senate, he said, being “torn” between concerns about the bill and worries that the $600 million invested in the state’s offshore wind could be much less valuable if the projects do not go ahead.

Posted on

BLM Holds Record-breaking Solar Auction in Nevada

The Bureau of Land Management on Tuesday auctioned four parcels in the Amargosa Desert in southern Nevada for solar development, raising a record-breaking $105 million.

The four Amargosa Desert parcels, totaling 23,675 acres, could support nearly 3 GW of renewable energy, the Department of the Interior said in a release. The $105 million auction was the highest-yielding onshore renewable energy auction in BLM history.

“This record-breaking auction for solar energy development is further evidence that the demand for clean energy has never been greater,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement. “The technological advances, increased interest, cost effectiveness, and tremendous economic potential make these projects a reliable path for diversifying our nation’s energy portfolio.”

NV Energy was the provisional winner for leases of two parcels within the Amargosa Valley Solar Energy Zone. The company bid $35.25 million for the 3,775-acre Parcel A and $46.6 million for the 3,451-acre Parcel B.

BLM auctioned two other parcels outside of the solar energy zone.

Boulevard Associates LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, placed the high bid of $21 million for 10,129 acres known as Parcel 1. Silver Star Solar I LLC, a subsidiary of Leeward Renewable Energy, had the high bid of $2.3 million for the 6,320-acre Parcel 2.

As the provisional preferred applicants for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, Boulevard Associates and Silver Star Solar have secured rights to submit solar energy development proposals for the land. Right-of-way applications are due within 30 days, followed by development plans within 60 days. BLM will review the proposals before approving further project development.

Greenlink Influence

Solar energy zones are the BLM’s preferred areas for utility-scale solar energy development. Solar energy zone locations were chosen based on their low potential for conflict with natural and cultural resources and other land uses.

BLM said last year that interest had surged in the Amargosa Valley Solar Energy Zone due to NV Energy’s proposed Greenlink West, a roughly 350-mile transmission line that will be built nearby. (See FERC Approves Greenlink Nevada Incentives.)

In addition to interest in land within the Amargosa Valley Solar Energy Zone, BLM received 15 applications within a year for utility-scale solar developments in the Amargosa Desert outside of the solar energy zone. The BLM described the area as having “many resource constraints.”

At the same time, BLM weighed the administration’s priority of permitting 25 GW of solar, wind and geothermal production on public lands by 2025. Working with other agencies, BLM developed a strategy for leasing Amargosa Desert land.

According to the Interior Department, BLM is processing 74 proposals for utility-scale clean energy projects on public lands in the Western U.S. The projects, which include solar, wind and geothermal development as well as gen-tie lines, could potentially add more than 37,000 MW of renewable energy to the Western grid.

Another 150 applications for solar and wind projects are under preliminary BLM review.

Posted on

States Make Progress Toward Renewable Energy Goals

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on Wednesday issued the 2023 edition of “U.S. State Renewables Portfolio & Clean Energy Standards,” which finds that states are mostly meeting their renewable energy goals.

The report provides an update on legislative revisions and progress toward targets in the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) adopted by 29 states and the District of Columbia. Those 30 RPS policies apply to 58% of U.S. retail electricity sales.

New in this year’s edition is a look at clean energy standards (CES). Fifteen states have established a 100% CES, most of them in combination with an RPS.

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) nationwide. | Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The report and spreadsheets of supporting data are on Berkeley Lab’s website.

Among the highlights:

    • Roughly half of nationwide growth in renewable energy generation since 2000 is associated with state RPS requirements, but the annual percentage has been declining, with only 30% of renewable capacity added in 2022 being attributable to RPS mandates.
    • RPS and CES policies will require about 300 TWh of additional clean energy supply by 2030 and 800 TWh by 2050.
    • RPS compliance accounts for 3.5% of retail electricity bills on average, but actual impact varies significantly, ranging from below 1% of retail bills in Texas, which met its final RPS target 15 years ago, to 12% in Massachusetts, where solar renewable energy certificates are the most expensive.
    • On-site or behind-the-meter projects have been growing slowly as a percentage of renewable energy capacity but surged to 30% of new renewable power in 2022.

The report notes that RPS and CES standards continue to evolve. In 2022 and the first quarter of 2023, some 150 pieces of RPS- and CES-related legislation were introduced — 63 of which would strengthen the standards and 32 of which would weaken them.

However, only 17 of those bills had been passed when the authors gathered their data. And 13 of those were only peripheral to the standards or had a neutral effect on their strength.

But four major revisions were enacted:

    • Connecticut created a CES calling for 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2040;
    • Minnesota established a 100%-by-2040 CES and increased its RPS to 55% by 2035;
    • Rhode Island increased its RPS to 100% by 2033;
    • Hawaii effectively raised the target of its RPS by basing it on percentage of total generation rather than retail sales.

Excluding hydropower, U.S. renewable energy generation has grown by 630 TWh this century, significantly more than the 281 TWh mandated via RPS or CES policies.

Clean Energy Standards (CES) nationwide. | Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

The authors note that multiple factors are driving the growth of renewable energy, including other state policies, federal tax credits, green power markets, declining cost for renewables, utilities’ integrated resource planning, net-metered solar and voluntary green power markets.

Given the number of potential factors, and the potentially overlapping or synergistic relationships among them, assigning an incremental impact to an individual RPS or CES policy can be difficult, the report notes.

The authors say the future impact of RPS and CES programs will depend on factors such as whether states decide to expand their targets; what kind of implementation and enforcement mechanisms states establish; the impact of federal attempts to stimulate creation of new clean energy supplies and transmission; and cost trajectories for renewable energy and renewable energy certificates.

Posted on

FERC Authorizes Final Construction for Mountain Valley Pipeline

FERC on Wednesday approved Mountain Valley Pipeline’s request to move forward with all remaining construction activities, just two days after the pipeline made the request (CP21-57).

The commission first approved the Equitrans Midstream project, which runs around 300 miles from West Virginia to southern Virginia, in 2017. But the project was delayed by years of court challenges until Congress passed a provision in the recent debt deal requiring final approvals for the project. President Biden signed the legislation on June 3. (See Lawmakers, White House Promise More Work on Permitting After Debt Deal.)

Despite the legal issues, Equitrans says the pipeline, planned to bring shale natural gas to customers in the Southeast, is already 94% complete. A spokesperson said the first of several “forward construction” crews should start work on the right-of-way shortly, with completion expected by the end of the year.

“Mountain Valley looks forward to flowing domestic natural gas this winter,” the company said.

FERC said that the new law means that all federal authorizations have been ratified by Congress, which includes issues before it on remand from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that came down a week before Biden signed the law. (See DC Circuit Partly Vacates FERC Gasline Approval.)

The commission specifically authorized the firm to resume construction in the Jefferson National Forest, and across all remaining waterbody crossings.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has long championed the project and welcomed FERC’s approval in a tweet, saying that “MVP is vital to America’s energy and national security and will benefit not only West Virginia, but the entire nation.”

The Sierra Club, which has long opposed the pipeline, released a statement urging regulators to uphold basic environmental safeguards when construction continues.

“Through their own failures alone, the Mountain Valley Pipeline should never be completed,” Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous said in a statement. “The unnecessary project has repeatedly been unable to comply with bedrock environmental laws and should never have been used as a tool in must-pass legislation to hold our country hostage or capitulate to special interests willing to destroy the planet for their own profits.”

Equitrans stock, which had been trading below $6/share before the debt deal, closed Thursday at $9.55, up 1.8% on the day.

Posted on

Stakeholders Respond to ERO Budget Drafts

Industry stakeholders urged NERC to focus on keeping cost increases in check in their reactions to the ERO Enterprise draft 2024 business plan and budget.

NERC and the regional entities submitted their draft budgets in May, projecting an overall ERO Enterprise budget of $275.4 million, up $25.2 million from the 2023 budget. (See Personnel, Meeting Costs Drive 2024 ERO Budget Hikes.) Each RE’s budget, along with NERC’s is set to grow by at least 8%, while the ERO’s overall assessment is planned to rise from $214.1 million to $240.1 million. Most of the organizations cited growing personnel, investments in technology, and rising travel costs after the COVID-19 pandemic to explain the planned increases.

NERC’s projected spending of $110.6 million is, as usual, the largest share of the ERO’s overall budget. While this amount is only slightly higher than that predicted in the 2023 budget — and the organization’s planned $97 million assessment is actually slightly less than last year’s projection — multiple respondents worried about not only this year’s budget, but also those planned for 2025 and 2026, which are slated for increases of 11% and 7.2% respectively.

A commonly expressed concern was the belief that the rising assessments would have to be passed on to utilities’ customers in the form of higher electric rates. Bonneville Power Administration and others warned that “the noticeable budget increases proposed by NERC [will] directly translate to budget pressure on registered entities,” and wondered if such pressure is necessary given the economic climate.

“We recognize costs are on the rise across the board,” BPA said. “As we look to the future, we feel it is our responsibility to highlight [that] those increases are acceptable when they are both a direct path forward supporting each organization’s core mission and are applicable to the region(s) they impact.”

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association similarly argued that the ERO should consider “more cost-efficient methods” to achieve its goals. Highlighting the intended headcount expansion across the ERO, with nearly 45 full-time equivalent positions to be added in 2024, NRECA pointed out that “many stakeholder organizations are maintaining or lowering headcount through 2024.”

Additionally, NRECA questioned why only about 31% of NERC’s budget was slated to go to standards development and compliance monitoring and enforcement, with the rest earmarked for “areas that were initially supplemental to the intent of the ERO” such as the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program, and NERC’s event analysis and situational awareness programs. NRECA requested that future drafts explain why such a large amount would go to these areas.

The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator joined NRECA in urging NERC to consider using some of its reserves to reduce the assessment, claiming that “assessments for Canadian entities are likely to increase” more than those for U.S. entities due to the way assessments are calculated in Canada. IESO also supported Electricity Canada’s call for NERC to ensure Canadian regulators are briefed on its projected spending.

Pushing for greater savings, NRECA even suggested that NERC reconsider whether it needs its Atlanta office at all since transitioning “to a predominately remote work organization” during the pandemic. NRECA argued that keeping the office for meetings is unnecessary because “there are many other alternatives available for these types of engagements.”

The only other stakeholder to touch on the Atlanta office issue was the ISO RTO Council Standards Review Committee, which did not commit to a position on the matter but acknowledged that “a space where meetings can be scheduled on short notice … is important to have.” Referring to NERC’s recent stakeholder survey about the office, the IRC SRC encouraged the ERO to “find the most cost-effective solution to retain this capability.”

NERC and the REs’ final business plans and budgets are expected to be presented at the August meeting of NERC’s Board of Trustees in Ottawa, Ontario.