The Governing Body of CAISO’s Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) named a new chair and vice chair Wednesday and welcomed a new member, while honoring a longtime member who decided not to seek another term.
In its annual rotation of leaders, the Governing Body elected Robert Kondziolka and Jennifer Gardner to serve as its chair and vice chair, respectively.
Kondziolka, a veteran of Arizona’s Salt River Project, joined the WEIM’s five-member board in January 2020 and served as vice chair for the past year. On Friday he replaced outgoing Chair Anita Decker, who will remain on the Governing Body.
Kondziolka praised Decker for her efforts in a year when CAISO and WEIM reached a new power-sharing agreement and moved forward with plans for an the WEIM to launch an extended day-ahead market.
“Anita, thank you very much,” Kondziolka said. “We appreciate your leadership.”
Gardner, an attorney and independent energy consultant, was elected to her first term on the Governing Body in July 2021. She previously spent five years with environmental nonprofit Western Resource Advocates, where she directed its Regional Energy Markets Program.
The body reappointed founding member John Prescott to a third three-year term. Prescott was CEO of Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative until his retirement in 2016, when he joined the inaugural Governing Body.
It also appointed a new member, Andrew Campbell, executive director of the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas. He previously has worked as chief energy adviser to the California Public Utilities Commission.
WEIM Nominating Committee Chair Nicole Hughes said Campbell, who served on the WEIM Governance Review Committee for the past two years, was chosen from a group of well qualified candidates.
“Mr. Campbell has demonstrated wide-ranging expertise and experience that will help guide the ISO as it navigates issues relating to market rules of the Western Energy Imbalance Market and an increasingly changing energy and electricity market landscape,” Hughes wrote in a memo to the body.
Campbell replaces outgoing member Valerie Fong, who has been on the Governing Body since it was formed in 2016 but decided not to seek another term. Her colleagues thanked her in a resolution for her “outstanding service and dedication” to the WEIM.
NYISO on Tuesday reviewed with stakeholders the preliminary results and assumptions for the first phase of a two-part Grid in Transition study on the reliability effects of integrating increasing amounts of renewable resources into the power system.
“This first phase is really leveraging the Climate Change Phase 1 study case work, [which] was completed about two or three years ago,” Nicole Bouchez, principal economist for market design, told the Installed Capacity/Market Issues Working Group. “Because of that, the second phase is going to be coordinating with the 2022 planning studies.”
Phase one of the study is expected to be completed by end of this year.
For the second phase starting in August, the ISO will use its upcoming system and resource outlook study and policy case for scenario one (S1) and the NYSERDA integration analysis for the scenario two (S2) policy case. The 2022 effort will identify and quantify through a new study the potential level of system flexibility and grid attributes needed to reliably maintain system balance, Bouchez said. (See NYISO Launches 2022 Grid Planning Study.)
Load Shapes
NYISO staff incorporated stakeholder feedback into the study, including reliability and market considerations from Grid in Transition work performed last year. Staff also evaluated the results from phase one, including looking at load shapes, the distribution of hourly ramps and what multi-hour ramps look like, Bouchez said.
The first phase of the study is based on the Climate Change Phase 1 CLCPA Case load forecast data. | NYISO
A graph of summer peak load shapes for 2030 and 2040 showed essentially the same shape for policy cases S1 and S2 for 2030, while 2040 shows an obvious difference with a midday dip being exacerbated by projected additional solar output during midday intervals, she said.
The graph of winter peak load shapes for 2030 and 2040 shows a notable difference in the underlying load between the two. While the 2030 load shape looks not that dissimilar from existing load, “the real difference comes when we look forward to 2040 and see that the overall load has grown a lot with electrification … this is clearly a winter peaking scenario in 2040 between summer and winter, but because of the different builds you see the impact a different solar build has even in winter low solar circumstances,” Bouchez said.
The first key finding in the nearly complete system and resource outlook study is that the total installed generation capacity to meet policy objectives within New York is projected to range from 111 to 124 GW by 2040, more than double the 51 GW of generation capacity that exists and is contracted today.
Second, the study finds that the capacity contribution of intermittent renewable resources declines as more are added to the system. The limited contribution of incremental resources inhibits the ability of the power system to effectively meet mandatory resource requirements and to serve load in hours in which renewable generation is limited or unavailable.
Third, the outlook study finds that “if resources are not built in excess of reserve requirements to meet reliability margins, New York will likely import significant amounts of energy that may or may not be renewable. Even with additional imports, there could be significant renewable energy that is not deliverable to customers during peak producing hours.”
Next Steps
The ISO’s next steps include expanding the analysis to look at ramps when the net load does not become negative, considering stakeholder feedback, and drafting the phase one analysis portion of the report in early August,
“We’re going to be starting in July to work on the system and resource outlook study production cost data, which would be looking at both policy cases, but also will be looking at different loads at that point too, just like the outlook study looks at different loads in the S1 and S2 policy cases,” Bouchez said. “Our intent is to attempt to finalize the study in September. It may be a bit of a stretch goal, but we are trying to aim for that.”
SPP has issued its second conservative operations advisory this summer for its entire 14-state Eastern Interconnection footprint, effective noon CT Wednesday through 10 p.m. CT Friday.
The grid operator said it declared the advisory to hot temperatures, high loads and wind forecast uncertainty. That allows the RTO’s balancing authority to use greater unit commitment notification timeframes that include commitments before the day-ahead market and/or committing resources in reliability status.
No surprise, July is forecasted to be another hot month. | The Weather Channel
SPP issues conservative operations advisories when it needs to operate its system conservatively based on weather, environmental, operational, terrorist, cyber or other events. Generation and transmission operators have been provided instructions on applicable procedures and must report any limitations, fuel shortages or concerns.
July temperatures are expected to be above average and forecasts from the Texas Gulf Coast through the Central Plains and into Wyoming, according to the Weather Channel.
The Midwest Reliability Organization’s regional summer assessment, released last week, included SPP among the region’s balancing authorities likely to face capacity shortfalls this summer requiring external energy assistance or other emergency measures. (See MRO Warns Energy Emergencies Likely in Summer.)
Saturday’s advisory replaced a resource advisory issued Friday for the same period. SPP said conditions warranted the escalation to conservative operations.
Neither advisory requires public conservation.
The RTO also declared a conservative operations alert for June 21-24. It has issued four resources advisories since late spring.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed major legislation Thursday that would expedite permitting for new generation and storage facilities and potentially extend the life of aging gas plants and the state’s last nuclear power plant in an effort to maintain grid reliability during the coming summers.
Assembly Bill 205 and Senate Bill 122, introduced as placeholder measures in January, were rewritten and published as omnibus energy budget trailer bills on Sunday, with only a few days for public review. The State Legislature passed AB 205 on Wednesday night and sent it to Newsom to sign. Lawmakers voted on the Senate version Thursday and submitted it to the governor. Both bills will take effect at the start of the new fiscal year Friday.
The measures approved Newsom’s proposed $5.2 billion strategic reliability reserve consisting of “existing generation capacity that was scheduled to retire, new generation, new storage projects, clean backup generation projects, [and] diesel and natural gas backup generation projects.” (See Calif. Governor Proposes $5B ‘Reliability Reserve’.)
They also make the Department of Water Resources the backstop procurement agency for short- and mid-term reliability needs. That could mean purchasing energy from Pacific Gas and Electric’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, scheduled to retire in 2025, and a fleet of aging natural gas plants along the California coast. The once-through cooling plants had been scheduled to retire in 2020 because of their destruction of ocean life, but the state extended their lifespans to 2023 for grid reliability. (See OTC Plants to Remain Open, Calif. Water Board Rules.)
Continued reliance on the plants could extend their lifespans beyond the retirement dates, critics of the trailer bills said. The U.S. Department of Energy retains authority over Diablo Canyon, but Newsom’s office has petitioned it for a share of federal funds to keep the plant operating, and the bills would set aside $75 million toward that goal.
The measures also enact sweeping changes to approvals of new energy projects by creating an “opt-in” process to allow the California Energy Commission (CEC) to consolidate permitting, including for larger solar arrays and battery installations, while mostly bypassing other federal, state and local permitting processes. The typically laborious review under the California Environmental Quality Act will also be streamlined.
In a joint statement, environmental groups urged lawmakers to take more time to fix the bills, which they said give “unprecedented new authority and a blanket exemption for the Department of Water Resources to finance, construct and/or operate any type of energy project without compliance with existing local, state or federal laws.”
The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and two dozen other groups also protested the creation of a new approval process at the CEC that “completely overrides the jurisdiction” of state, regional and local planning authorities.
During Wednesday night’s floor debate, Democratic lawmakers, including some staunch environmentalists, defended the bills as necessary for maintaining reliability over the next several years as the state transitions toward 100% clean energy.
“We’ve looked at the data, and we realize that we’re going to have or may have a shortfall,” State Sen. BobWieckowski (D) said. “It may happen this summer. It may happen in 2023, 2024 [or] 2025. … It may mean in order to keep the lights on [for the residents] of California, we may have to procure some of these dirty fossil fuels.”
After energy emergencies the past two summers, including rolling blackouts in August 2020, the state has struggled to bolster capacity to meet peak demand. Extreme heat, drought and wildfires have made that difficult, and state energy planners have said the state could face more shortfalls during the next four summers of 1,700 to 10,000 MW, depending on the severity of circumstances. (See Heat, Fire and Supply Chain Woes Threaten Calif. Reliability.)
Lawmakers previously accepted Newsom’s broad energy plan in principle but left spending details to be worked out in closed-door negotiations between the governor’s office and legislative leaders in recent weeks. (See Calif. Lawmakers Offer Alternative Energy Budget.) The result was the language in the budget trailer bills approved Thursday.
Balancing authorities in three of the four Midwest Reliability Organization subregions are likely to face capacity shortfalls this summer requiring external energy assistance or other emergency measures, the regional entity warned in its Regional Summer Assessment.
MRO conducts its regional assessment each year as a complement to NERC’s Summer Reliability Assessment and to identify potential issues on a “more granular” level, MRO Principal Reliability Assessments Engineer Salva Andiappan said in a webinar on Thursday. The RE’s assessments also analyze historical data from previous summers to spot trends that could impact grid reliability in coming seasons.
MRO’s summer forecast includes the months of June through September. Like NERC’s summer assessment, released in May, MRO warned that SPP and Saskatchewan Power are both at elevated risk of energy emergencies, while the MISO North and Central areas are at high risk. (See West, Texas, Midwest at Risk of Summer Shortfalls, NERC Says.) Only Manitoba Hydro indicated it possesses sufficient resources to meet the subregion’s reserve margin requirements under both normal and extreme demand scenarios.
Highest Risk for MISO North, Central
The normal demand scenario, also called the 50/50 scenario, represents a prediction with a 50% chance of being exceeded, while the extreme scenario, also called 90/10, has a 10% chance of being exceeded. Under the first, MISO, SPC and SPP anticipate reserve margins of 3.2%, 2.6% and 12.3% respectively, well below the requirements of 17.9%, 11% and 16%.
Under extreme conditions, the margins for all three drop below zero, leading to a high risk that the BAs will have to issue energy emergency alerts and implement operating mitigations including non-firm imports, demand response and short-term load interruption, a likelihood that is low for Manitoba Hydro in both conditions.
MISO’s projection is based on results of the RTO’s recent Planning Resource Auction, which MRO said indicated “insufficient capacity to cover anticipated summer peak demand and increased risk of needing to implement temporary, controlled load sheds” under extreme conditions. (See MISO’s 2022/23 Capacity Auction Lays Bare Shortfalls in Midwest.) The RTO’s shortfall of more than 1.2 GW was caused by increased load forecast coupled with retirements of existing generation resources and their replacement with new resources with lower capacity.
MRO 2022 summer peak capacity by fuel types | MRO
One bright spot in this forecast is that some units that “did not qualify for reserve capacity in the PRA” might still be able to help MISO serve energy during the summer. However, MRO still said the shortfall in the month of July could reach as high as 5 GW.
SaskPower, meanwhile, is expected to strain under a 7.5% increase in peak demand driven by “the economy returning to pre-pandemic levels” as well as oil and gas development. The subregion should be able to meet normal demand but may need “external assistance” in conditions of above-normal generator outages; this is also the case for SPP, where the elevated risk is attributed to drought conditions affecting water sources needed for generation and cooling.
For Manitoba Hydro, on the other hand, the scenario is quite rosy; the subregion reported it anticipates no unexpected rises in load, unlike last summer, while new generating units coming online at the Keeyask hydroelectric station are expected to expand the margin comfortably. The fifth and sixth units are expected to enter service this summer, and the last should be online by winter, MRO said.
A new hydrogen task force set to launch in July could provide Connecticut legislators with the information they need to create “a very robust hydrogen package” in the next legislative session, Rep. David Arconti (D) said Wednesday.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signed a bill in May authorizing the creation of a task force responsible for creating a hydrogen study and delivering it to the General Assembly by Jan. 15.
Brian Garcia, president of the Connecticut Green Bank, will chair the 21-member task force, which must hold its first meeting by July 22, as directed by the legislation (SA22-8).
Passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which includes $8 billion in federal matching funds for a federal hydrogen hubs program, gave the hydrogen study bill “more momentum” during the session, Arconti said at a legislative and regulatory update hosted by the Connecticut Power and Energy Society. A March agreement among Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey to submit a regional proposal for the hub program made the study bill “even more timely,” he said.
“A lot of people in the legislature are excited to talk about something that could decarbonize a lot of sectors, and they are racking their brains around how we can get to net-zero [electricity] by 2040,” he said.
The study of hydrogen-fueled energy in the state’s economy and infrastructure will include reviews of:
regulations and legislation to achieve economies of scale for hydrogen;
hydrogen-related incentives and programs in IIJA;
workforce development opportunities;
sources of clean hydrogen, including wind, solar, biogas and nuclear; and
funding sources for hydrogen energy programs and infrastructure.
Waste Solutions
A new state working group is gearing up to begin a separate study to identify waste disposal solutions following the planned shutdown this summer of the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA) waste-to-energy plant.
Lamont signed legislation (SA22-11) in May authorizing the working group, which Sen. Norm Needleman (D) will co-chair. The working group does not have a legislatively mandated start date, but it must submit the study to the legislature by Jan. 1.
Without the MIRA plant, Connecticut will ship “large amounts of solid waste to other states, in many cases to environmental justice communities,” Needleman said during the CPES webinar. “With the emissions that will cause, from trucks and trains as well as burying the [waste], we’re going to get the methane one way or the other.”
The MIRA plant, which is one of five waste-to-energy facilities in the state, has been operating since the late 1980s. The high cost of redeveloping the facility led to the planned suspension of waste combustion. MIRA instead asked regulators last September to amend its permit to allow for the transfer of 275,000 tons of waste per year to other licensed management facilities.
Needleman hopes the working group will produce ideas for new waste management legislation.
“I want … another 20-year solution that puts us back on the right track to reducing waste and converting whatever we can to energy, either by anaerobic digestion or by burning what’s left in a more efficient burn plant,” he said.
There is potential for expanding the state’s existing waste-to-energy capacity or building another plant that Needleman expects would provide “a lot of benefits.”
“We’re taking a step back on the short-term basis,” he said, adding that he expects the state will still “get to a point where we have solutions all the way around.”
Reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA came fast and, predictably, framed with an eye on upcoming midterm elections.
The 6-3 decision overturned a lower court ruling that had upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants under the Clean Power Plan developed during the administration of former President Obama and overturned by his successor, former President Trump. (See Supreme Court Rejects EPA Generation Shifting).
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” said Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d) [of the Clean Air Act]. A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
Republicans and fossil fuel industry groups praised the court, decried the Biden administration’s regulatory “overreach” and linked federal efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions to high gas prices and the threat of summer power outages.
Democrats and clean energy advocates meanwhile criticized the court for its backward-looking decision and called for federal and state legislative action in response.
But on Twitter, and among legal and energy experts, the reactions were more measured, seeing the decision as a curb on EPA authority but far from gutting its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
For many, the question is how the decision will affect President Joe Biden’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2030, the U.S. commitment under the Paris climate accords.
John Bistline, a program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, said reaching that goal will mean policies will have to evolve. Bistline said the country still has “a lot of ways we could potentially reach those targets that could be combinations of federal and state policies, things like a CO2 cap-and-trade system … regulation like performance standards, including the ones that were at the center of today’s decision, as well as broader incentives, things like enhanced tax credits.”
But Bistline also said the decision could create uncertainty for utilities and other businesses. Based on existing policies, the U.S. will only be able to cut GHG emissions 6% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2030, he said.
The Governors
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) was among the first to weigh in on the decision. “This ruling … will stop unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., from being able to unilaterally decarbonize our economy just because they feel like it,” Justice said. “Instead, members of Congress who have been duly elected to represent the will of the people across all of America will be allowed to have a rightful say when it comes to balancing our desire for a clean environment with our need for energy and the security it provides us.”
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice | Office of Gov. Jim Justice
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) called the ruling a “landmark victory against an out-of-control administration” and “a big win for Americans who worry about skyrocketing energy costs due to expensive federal regulations that threaten our energy industry.” Texas and West Virginia were among 20 states that joined in the court challenge.
But California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) slammed the court for siding “with the fossil fuel industry [and] kneecapping the federal government’s basic ability to tackle climate change. Today’s ruling makes it even more imperative that California and other states succeed in our efforts to combat the climate crisis. While the court has once again turned back the clock, California refuses to go backward — we’re just getting started.”
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) agreed in a Twitter post, saying the court had “dealt a blow to federal efforts to combat [the] climate change ravages of coal fired pollution. This means we, in our own state, need to up our game. We are fully up to the task. States like [Washington] have been leading on climate action, and we aren’t done.”
Capitol Hill
Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle declared themselves ready to use their legislative authority, although with very different goals in mind.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) | House E&C Committee
“When Congress acts to address major policy questions affecting Americans and their livelihoods, it says so clearly, explicitly,” said Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“It does not hide sweeping authorities of the executive branch in obscure provisions of the law … This decision restores power to the people through their elected representatives.”
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, tweeted that the decision “rightfully reins in unreasonable and unlawful attempts to shut down American power plants and energy production.”
In response, longtime climate advocate Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the decision “takes away the EPA’s firehose and gives it a leaky bucket instead.
Sen. Ed Markey | Sen. Ed Markey via Twitter
“We will fight in Congress and in the executive branch to do what we can and to not back down, but no one, not ISO-NE, not our state governments, not our city councils, can now sit out this crisis and wait for a climate chaos to arrive,” Markey said at a Thursday press conference. “The Supreme Court will not and cannot be the last word on climate action.”
“There is no doubt that this decision is the result of years of coordinated, calculated efforts by Republicans and polluting special interests to undermine Americans’ right to clean, safe air,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
He called on Congress to “redouble our efforts to enact robust climate programs and investments to address the crisis we face. EPA continues to have many powerful tools at its disposal, and there is more both Congress and the president can do to meet the climate crisis head-on.”
The Lawyers and Academics
Discussions on Twitter focused on the decision’s “silver linings” and other pathways to GHG emissions reductions.
The court “did NOT go after EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs,” said Jesse Jenkins, a professor at Princeton University’s Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment. “They just struck at the Obama EPA’s outside fence line sectoral approach to regulate emissions under 111(d), which was always a ‘creative’ reading of statute, if we’re being generous.”
Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, agreed, saying the decision does not strip the EPA of its authority. “The silver lining is EPA’s authority to determine [the] best system of emissions reduction is intact and reinforced,” she said.
Similarly, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said EPA can still regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles and new power plants and factories. “The decision was basically about coal-fired power plants, but EPA can still regulate them in other ways, such as limiting their other air pollutants; coal ash; hot water discharges.”
Trade Associations
Reactions from utility and fossil fuel trade associations supported the decision but were more moderate in tone and keyed to reflect consumer concerns.
Jim Matheson, NRECA | NRECA
Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, said the decision puts the EPA back on an “appropriate regulatory path, requiring it to set achievable emissions guidelines that can be accomplished at existing power plants, while also allowing states to consider local factors and have the final say on compliance options.
“The energy decisions we make today will determine whether there are sufficient resources for the lights to come on tomorrow,” Matheson said, linking early “disorderly” fossil fuel plant retirements to the threat of rolling blackouts through the summer months.
Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of America’s Power, a coal industry trade association, echoed Matheson.
Michelle Bloodworth, America’s Power | USEA
“We urge EPA to avoid issuing a replacement rule that causes more premature coal retirements, especially as officials are warning about the prospect of electricity shortages that threaten grid reliability in many parts of the country.”
While not directly commenting on the decision, the American Petroleum Institute (API), touted the industry’s efforts to reduce its emissions, through “continuous innovation.”
The industry has already reduced its CO2 emissions to “generational lows … outpacing the Clean Power Plan,” and “will continue to work with policymakers across the federal government in support of smart regulations that build on the progress we’ve made on CO2 emissions reductions while bolstering our energy security,” API said.
The Advocates
Advocacy groups focused on the ripple effects the decision could have.
Sasha Mackler, executive director of the energy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the ruling will cause uncertainty at a time “when greater clarity on national climate policy is needed.”
“Administrative actions to reduce carbon emissions are important, but they have proven to be slow, contentious and inadequate,” Mackler said. “With agencies now further constrained, the only path forward to a broad and effective program driving the transition to a national low-carbon energy system is for Congress to come together to enact durable, bipartisan energy and climate legislation.”
Drew Bond, president of the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions, called the decision “a win for the climate and constitutional democracy.
“Innovation, not overregulation, is the solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” Bond said. “Instead of looking to regulators to impose top-down mandates, activists on all sides should ask legislators to pass laws that encourage bottom-up solutions.”
But Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy group, said the decision could put a damper on corporate commitments to reduce emissions “and will leave the U.S. economy behind Europe, China and other nations driving low-carbon technology development.
“Investors with trillions of assets under management are moving to decarbonize their portfolios to achieve net-zero emissions and thousands of the world’s largest companies, many in the S&P 500, are setting targets for their operations and value chains to draw down their emissions to net-zero,” he said. “An even playing field and clear regulatory guidelines from EPA are necessary to drive progress across the economy.”
With the electric sector facing shortages of critical spare parts and supplies, and another active hurricane season looming, industry stakeholders at all levels must work together to keep the grid functioning, participants in a webinar hosted by the U.S. Energy Association said Wednesday.
The supply of critical equipment, particularly transformers, has been a growing concern because of supply chain disruptions amid the Russo-Ukraine conflict and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this month, President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to “accelerate domestic production of” several types of energy equipment including “transformers and electric grid equipment,” along with insulation and solar panels.
Biden’s decision followed a joint letter sent last month to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and American Public Power Association (APPA) urging the Department of Energy to temporarily waive energy conservation standards for distribution transformers in order to allow manufacturers to speed up production.
Joy Ditto, APPA | USEA
APPA CEO Joy Ditto, who cosigned that letter, said in Wednesday’s webinar that the organizations are still pushing the government to waive those standards and commit to a moratorium on “new efficiency standards coming down the pike in at least the short- to medium-term.” She warned that while electric sector participants are doing what they can to ease the supply chain burden, the manufacturing sector remains a missing piece of the puzzle.
“We’re asking for our members to do their part, and the sector to do its part, to share with each other … [and] we’ve had some good success with that already,” Ditto said. “But in terms of the longer-term view, we are going to need to really get a handle from the manufacturers about how this can be alleviated.”
Attendees at the webinar said supply chain choke points are already emerging, creating grave concerns with summer just beginning and NERC warning of another active wildfire season in the Western U.S. and Canada. (See West, Texas, Midwest at Risk of Summer Shortfalls, NERC Says.) Rudy Garza, interim CEO at San Antonio’s municipally owned gas and electric utility CPS Energy, said his company was “probably managing [the situation] as well, if not better than most utilities in our sector” by diversifying its supplier base to avoid tapping out any one supply line.
No Time Like the Present
But CPS is still having difficulties obtaining equipment and has had to postpone both work on existing projects and getting new projects underway. Rising costs are also creating problems for the utility.
Ray Kowalik, Burns & McDonnel | USEA
“We’re seeing delays on our bread-and-butter equipment, from standard transformers [for] residential subdivisions, to … gas risers,” Garza said. “I was at our gas facility the other day waiting on a truck to come in, and that truck was delayed … to January of next year. And so my team is trying to figure out how we’re going to manufacture what we need to be able to make those gas connections and go talk to our regulator to make sure that they approve it.”
Asked whether these issues might open the door for new suppliers of electric equipment to address the bottlenecks, attendees agreed that the problem is not that simple. Garza said that he would “love to be able to go to Amazon and order a transformer, but you still have to have a manufacturer on the other side,” to which Ray Kowalik, CEO of Burns & McDonnell, pointed out that distribution issues are relatively easy to solve.
“Quite honestly, the delivery problem can generally be fixed with money,” Kowalik said. “You can pay a little more to get … the trucking company to get your product there. But fundamentally the problem is making enough product and getting it out of the facilities and to the end users.”
Scott Aaronson, EEI | USEA
However, attendees did see an opportunity in the current situation to address other ongoing issues with the electric equipment supply chain. Scott Aaronson, a senior vice president for security and preparedness at Edison Electric Institute, said that simplifying and standardizing production lines might not help utilities iron out their current delays any faster, but they might help enormously the next time manufacturing and distribution lines are squeezed.
“If you look across just distribution transformers, for example, I learned recently there’s more than 10,000 [stock keeping units] for distribution transformers across the United States. That’s absurd,” Aaronson said. “Now, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, [but] the second best time is today. And so … starting to tack toward a more standardized system at the distribution level so that we can more efficiently share material and equipment … can help break down some of the supply chain challenges we’re seeing now.”
FERC on Tuesday approved SPP tariff revisions that establish an annual process for each transmission pricing zone to develop a single set of uniform zonal planning criteria used to evaluate zonal reliability upgrades in the RTO’s regional transmission planning process. The changes became effective Wednesday (ER22-1719).
The commission found the proposed process allows for the “collaborative development” of zonal planning criteria in multi-transmission owner zones that will then be used to determine the need for zonal reliability upgrades. It said SPP’s proposal is just and reasonable as it would address concerns over the current process, which could lead to confusion and potential inequities because zones with multiple TOs can have multiple sets of local planning criteria for the same zone.
SPP’s transmission pricing zones | SPP
FERC’s approval came after it rejected SPP’s first attempt to change the zonal planning criteria in 2020. The commission sided with stakeholders’ argument that the proposal would have given a pricing zone’s lead TO “unilateral power” and “unduly” benefit them and the zone’s largest network load customer. (See FERC Rejects SPP’s Zonal Planning Criteria.)
The commission said SPP’s revised proposal addressed its concern because it establishes a defined process by which a zone’s TOs and transmission customers can provide input on potential planning criteria, and comment and ultimately vote on draft criteria developed by the facilitating transmission owner (FTO).
“SPP’s proposed zonal planning criteria process provides for meaningful opportunities for input from interested stakeholders,” FERC said.
The RTO has 18 transmission pricing zones, 10 with multiple TOs. The revised proposal designates an FTO responsible for facilitating that zone’s development of a single set of planning criteria for that zone. SPP has recommended that the network customer with the zone’s largest total network load be the FTO.
A zone’s TOs and customers that receive long-term service can submit proposed planning criteria to the FTO by May 1 each year. The FTO will have until June 1 to post its draft criteria, and all interested parties will then have 30 days to respond with written comments. The FTO must hold at least one open meeting each year and conduct a two-step voting process that includes a load-weighted vote of all transmission customers receiving service to approve the final criteria.
FERC’s approval culminates a process that began in 2018 with SPP’s Holistic Integrated Tariff Team. The stakeholder group made 21 recommendations that included the zonal planning criteria. (See SPP Board Approves HITT’s Recommendations.)
The RTO’s filing at FERC drew nearly two dozen intervenors, as well as protests from Oklahoma Gas & Electric, GridLiance High Plains and a group comprising Evergy’s affiliates and ITC Great Plains. The commission disagreed with their arguments that SPP was replacing zonal planning with its regional planning process and violating FERC Order 1000’s requirements, and that the proposed two-step voting mechanism is inequitable because either the FTO or a small transmission customer can effectively veto the criteria’s adoption.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that EPA lacks authority to compel generation shifting to reduce carbon emissions, saying the agency failed to provide “clear congressional authorization” for the rulemaking (West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.).
The immediate impact of the court’s ruling is minimal: It voided the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was withdrawn by the Trump administration, and the Biden administration has said it would not attempt to implement it.
But as the latest in a series of orders by the conservative-dominated court to limit executive agencies’ discretion, it could act as a constraint on any future EPA action. The Biden administration told the court in oral arguments in February that it planned to issue a replacement for the CPP by the end of this year. (See Supreme Court Hears Arguments on EPA Authority over GHGs.)
President Biden called the ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he has directed officials to review the decision “and find ways that we can, under federal law, continue protecting Americans from … pollution that causes climate change.”
The CPP sought to cut power sector carbon emissions by 32% compared with 2005 levels by 2030 by substituting coal-fired generation with natural gas and renewables. EPA said it was permitted under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, which empowers it to impose standards “for any existing source” based on limits “achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction” (BSER) that has been “adequately demonstrated.”
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. | U.S. Supreme Court
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, agreed with opponents who contended EPA’s authority to regulate power plants is limited to steps individual plants can make “inside the fence line.”
“At bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme, or set of state cap-and-trade schemes, for carbon,” the court said. It reversed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 ruling in 2021 that vacated the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, with which the Trump administration had proposed to replace the CPP. (See DC Circuit Rejects Trump ACE Rule.)
Roberts said the legality of the CPP was one of the “extraordinary cases” that require the court to weigh the “history and the breadth of the authority” claimed by an agency and the “economic and political significance” of its actions.
The court said the “major questions doctrine” was necessary to address “a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”
It cited previous rulings denying the Food and Drug Administration from claiming authority over tobacco products (FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 2000); rejecting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s authority to institute a nationwide eviction moratorium to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services,2021), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s mandate requiring employees obtain a COVID vaccine or undergo weekly testing (National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 2022).
Before the CPP, the court said, EPA had always set emissions limits under Section 111 “based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly.”
The Biden administration disputed that characterization, citing EPA’s 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule, which it says relied on a cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce emissions. But Roberts said that rule set an emissions cap based on what was achievable by technologies that could be installed on power plants. “By contrast, and by design, there is no control a coal plant operator can deploy to attain the emissions limits established by the Clean Power Plan,” Roberts said.
EPA said it was operating within the law by limiting its regulations to those that will not be “exorbitantly costly” or “threaten the reliability of the grid.”
“But this argument does not so much limit the breadth of the government’s claimed authority as reveal it,” Roberts wrote. “On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in deciding how Americans will get their energy. EPA decides, for instance, how much of a switch from coal to natural gas is practically feasible by 2020, 2025 and 2030 before the grid collapses, and how high energy prices can go as a result before they become unreasonably ‘exorbitant.’ There is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the agency.”
While Congress amended the National Ambient Air Quality Standards statute to explicitly authorize use of cap-and-trade as a compliance mechanism, it did not do so regarding carbon or Section 111, Roberts said.
“Generation shifting can be described as a ‘system’ … capable of reducing emissions,” Roberts acknowledged. “But of course almost anything could constitute such a ‘system’; shorn of all context, the word is an empty vessel. Such a vague statutory grant is not close to the sort of clear authorization required by our precedents.”
“When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the executive branch might seek to take matters into their own hands,” Gorsuch wrote in a concurrence with Alito. “But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
Dissent
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. | U.S. Supreme Court
The majority’s ruling denies EPA “the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’” Justice Elena Kagan responded in a dissent, quoting from the court’s 2007 ruling that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by EPA (Massachusetts v. EPA).
“The majority’s decision rests on one claim alone: that generation shifting is just too new and too big a deal for Congress to have authorized it in Section 111’s general terms. But that is wrong. A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems,” said Kagan, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in the dissent.
“Section 111 does not impose any constraints — technological or otherwise — on EPA’s authority to regulate stationary sources (except for those stated, like cost). In somehow (and to some extent) saying otherwise, the majority flouts the statutory text,” she wrote.
“The current court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards,” Kagan continued. “Today, one of those broader goals makes itself clear: prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what Congress directed. That anti-administrative-state stance shows up in the majority opinion, and it suffuses the concurrence.”
Kagan said even facility-specific controls dictate “the national energy mix to one or another degree.”
“That result follows because regulations affect costs, and the electrical grid works by taking up energy from low-cost providers before high-cost ones. Consider an example: Suppose EPA requires coal-fired plants to use carbon-capture technology. That action increases those plants’ costs, and automatically (by virtue of the way the grid operates) reduces their share of the electricity market. … Everything EPA does is ‘generation shifting.’ The majority’s idea that EPA has no warrant to direct such a shift just indicates that courts sometimes do not really get regulation.”
Kagan also challenged the majority’s fear of the cost of the Obama plan, saying the CPP, “we now know, would have had little or no impact.”
During arguments before the court in February, the Biden administration said the electric industry achieved the CPP’s emission limits a decade ahead of schedule — without the regulation in place. Opponents countered that although the standards were largely met nationwide, 20 states had not met them.
