Search
`
November 12, 2024

Posted on

California PUC Tells SoCalGas to Return Ratepayer Money

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday ordered Southern California Gas Co. to refund ratepayer money it inappropriately used to lobby against regulations that could undermine its business, such as building codes that require electric space and water heaters in new construction instead of gas appliances.

The commission also imposed a $150,000 penalty against SoCalGas after hearing from some parties who argued for no fines and others who urged a $255 million penalty.

The moves were the latest in a long-running dispute between the CPUC and the nation’s largest gas utility, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE), over its advocacy efforts against the California Energy Commission’s building decarbonization requirements, federal efficiency standards, and the state’s 100% clean energy mandate, which would remove natural gas from the generation mix by 2045.

Last month the CPUC fined SoCalGas $9.8 million for contempt of its 2018 order to stop using ratepayer money to lobby against greenhouse gas reduction efforts intended to benefit ratepayers. The company flouted the order and continued to engage in “numerous and substantive” activities that harmed the regulatory process, Administrative Law Judge Valerie Kao wrote in her Feb. 3 decision.

“Such insolence must be accorded a high degree of severity,” Kao said. Her decision took effect last month after SoCalGas did not appeal it in the required 30 days.

The CPUC’s Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates) had recommended a $124 million fine in the case.

Of the dozens of allegations against it, SoCalGas accepted some in a filing but argued others were outside the scope of the 2018 order. It contended, for example, that lobbying the U.S. Department of Energy was not covered by the order, an argument that Kao flatly rejected.

The case decided Thursday involved SoCalGas’s activities prior to the 2018 order, from 2014 to 2017, when it was prohibited from engaging in “codes and standards advocacy” with ratepayer money because of a prior order but did so anyway, the CPUC said.

Kao issued a proposed decision in the case that ordered SoCalGas to refund ratepayer funds but did not impose a penalty. Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen offered an alternative decision that was the same as Kao’s except for proposing a $150,000 fine.

Both decisions ordered SoCalGas to return the ratepayer dollars it misspent and instructed commission staff to perform an audit to determine the amount.

Commissioners adopted Rechtschaffen’s alternative Thursday, voting 3-2 in a rare split decision.

Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma, who was the lead commissioner in the proceeding before Kao, said she thought the judge had “got the outcome right” and voted against Rechtschaffen’s alternative. The previous $9.8 million fine of SoCalGas and the later decision ordering the return of ratepayer money “go together,” she said.

Commissioner Darcie Houck said she agreed with Shiroma and voted against Rechtschaffen’s proposal.

Other commissioners supported Rechtschaffen’s contention that the fine was necessary to deter similar behavior.

Rechtschaffen’s decision applied “deliberate and precise penalties for specific actions that clearly contradict the commission’s direction,” CPUC President Alice Reynolds said. “These carefully crafted additions to [Kao’s proposed decision] are important to ensure the integrity of the regulatory process and deter future unlawful practices.”

Commissioner John Reynolds also voted for Rechtschaffen’s decision, as did Rechtschaffen himself.

Opponents of both proposed decisions said $150,000 would not deter unlawful behavior and proposed a fine of up to $255 million, based on the argument that SoCalGas’s improper actions were “continuing” over time, not 10 distinct actions each meriting a fine of $15,000, as Rechtschaffen concluded.

Rechtschaffen’s alternative decision “errs in considering what it properly identifies as ‘a deliberate and years-long pattern of misconduct’ as constituting 10 single-day violations for the purpose of assessing penalties,” the Sierra Club contended. “Commission precedent strongly supports finding SoCalGas’ conduct as a continuing violation.”

Cal Advocates argued that a $150,000 penalty “falls far short of an amount that could reasonably be expected to deter SoCalGas and other utilities from future misconduct” and said a $255 million fine for SoCalGas’s ongoing violations was more appropriate.

“The commission, consistent with its prior decisions, its established penalty framework, and its obligation to oversee the conduct and rates of the entities it regulates, must impose a fine that is likely to deter SoCalGas from disregarding Commission directives when faced with the choice of either complying with those directives or maximizing shareholder profits,” it said.

Posted on

Stakeholder Soapbox: Three FERC Fixes to Enable Transmission Competition

Transmission is the Backbone of Decarbonization

Paul Segal (LS Power) FI.jpgPaul Segal, LS Power | LS Power

Essential to combating climate change is a significant buildout of transmission. Achieving critical elements of a “net-zero” economy — including electrified transportation and power generation that relies heavily on wind and solar resources — will require a massive investment in our nation’s transmission infrastructure. A recent study of long-term decarbonization pathways estimates an investment of $1.3 trillion to $3.6 trillion will be needed through 2050 to expand the U.S. transmission system by about two to five times[1] to meet climate goals. 

To grow our current system by this magnitude, we need a regulatory framework that cost-effectively mobilizes investment into new transmission. Regrettably, current federal and state regulations fail to harness the power of competition to accelerate investment and control costs. Instead, regulations cede too much control over our nation’s grid to the self-interest of incumbent utilities, which benefit financially from augmenting, rather than controlling, costs. As a result, historically less than 10% of domestic transmission has been subject to competitive bidding.

Correcting the flaws within our transmission policy lies within the power of federal regulators — specifically, FERC. To promote more competitive transmission procurements, FERC must close unintended loopholes to allow the already-existing FERC Order 1000 to function as intended by (1) creating a robust Independent System Planner standard; (2) ensuring that all transmission over 100 kV is regionally (rather than locally) planned; and (3) mandate minimum transmission transfer capability between regions.

Competition is Crucial to Scaling High-impact Transmission Investment

To get to where we need to go, we must utilize the power of competition to optimize the buildout of America’s transmission system by:

  • Reducing costs: Relative to an incumbent utility operating as an isolated monopoly, introducing competition into transmission procurements sharpens the focus on efficient designs and cost-containment mechanisms (i.e. fosters approaches that shift the risk of cost overruns and inflationary pressures onto developers and away from ratepayers). In New Jersey’s recent transmission solicitation to support its planned offshore wind buildout, 57 out of 79 proposals included cost-containment provisions. Such provisions range from binding construction cost caps to limits on allowable return on equity. None of these ratepayer protections would have been possible were it not for a competitive process that rewards developers for controlling costs.

    Studies from The Brattle Group and other sources show that competitive bidding processes routinely deliver projects at discounts of 30% (or more) to initial project cost estimates and incumbent utility offers. Given the long-term required transmission investment of about $1 trillion to $4 trillion, savings of $300 billion to $900 billion are at stake (and are particularly significant given today’s inflationary climate). In transmission as in other sectors — and as the Biden administration highlights in its recent “Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy”[2] — enhanced competition benefits consumers and strengthens economic growth.

  • Encouraging innovation: Exposure to competitive pressures spurs innovative designs that can transmit more power over the same footprint. Unlike incumbent regulated utilities, competitive bidders are rewarded for doing more with less. For example, with LS Power’s Silver Run transmission project between Delaware and New Jersey (awarded in a PJM competitive solicitation), use of a customized underwater cable injector design (the first of its kind in the U.S.) yielded 60% cost savings relative to initial estimates, in addition to environmental benefits from less overhead wiring and a smaller land footprint.  

Regulatory Change is Essential to Promote Efficiency 

Prior to 2011, incumbent utilities that owned transmission infrastructure generally proposed and built transmission projects without any competition or incentive to contain costs. To protect consumers, FERC Order 1000 was implemented in 2011 to mandate that utilities allow competition for projects that are regionally planned and cost-allocated to two or more utilities. Though successful in creating an initial market for competitive transmission procurements, unintended loopholes in FERC Order 1000’s implementation mean that procurements have remained quite limited. For example, between 2013 and 2017, only 3% of domestic transmission was subject to competition (i.e., $540 million out of total annual average transmission investment over this period of $18 billion).[3]Even with a recent uptick in competitive awards, this share currently remains below 10%.  

The reason why transmission competition has been limited is that self-interested monopoly utilities have devised tactics to restrict the definition of “regionally planned” (as opposed to “locally planned”) or otherwise subvert the intent of Order 1000. Examples of such self-serving tactics include:

  • Minimum voltage requirements: Many regions (including PJM, CAISO and MISO) restrict competitive projects to those above 200 kV — thereby excluding large swaths of the transmission network from competition.[4]   
  • Reliability exemptions: Projects are frequently exempted from competition by deeming them necessary for near-term reliability purposes, while short-term system planning is utilized to avoid competitive processes.
  • State ROFR laws: Utilities have successfully lobbied state legislatures to pass laws giving them a right of first refusal (ROFR) on any transmission solicitations — thereby eliminating and harming competitive procurements. States that adopted such ROFR laws include Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan, South Dakota and Texas.  

Such nefarious tactics have impeded transmission competition throughout the U.S. at the expense of consumers, particularly in those regions (e.g., the Southeast and Pacific Northwest) that are outside the purview of a regional transmission organization (RTO). In the decade since enactment of Order 1000, these non-RTO regions have held extremely limited competitive transmission procurements.

FERC Fixes: Independent System Planner, Lower Voltage Limits, Minimum Transfer Capability

To address these challenges and promote cost-effective and innovative transmission processes, FERC should increase its enforcement of existing rules and further promulgate new policies that bolster competitive transmission procurements.

LS Power respectfully proposes three policies that would extend transmission competition to non-RTO regions, reduce “gaming of the system” via minimum voltage thresholds for regional planning and competition, and catalyze new interregional transmission projects:

Recommendation #1: Level the playing field for enforcement. If FERC is unwilling to mandate RTOs nationally, then FERC should apply an enhanced Independent System Planner (ISP) standard and planning scope to each of the 14 Order 1000 regions.       

Put simply, an ISP accountable to FERC will exercise planning authority for all regional and interregional planning on transmission facilities over 100 kV[5] (and under 100 kV, in certain instances) and will administer competitive solicitations to select transmission expansion/upgrade projects (including qualification and selection of the most efficient or cost-effective solutions).[6]Providing a nationally consistent ISP framework will (1) ensure that all regions — including those outside of an RTO — will be subject to minimum transmission planning and independence standards and (2) further discourage utilities from leaving an existing RTO.[7]

Recommendation #2: Fix the FERC 1000 “monopoly loophole.” Require that all transmission over 100 kV be regionally planned (consistent with the new ISP standard) and that transmission above 69 kV should also be regionally planned if it is determined to facilitate regional benefits.

Incumbent utilities have undermined the intent of Order 1000 by exaggerating the share of their transmission projects that deliver only local benefits (and are therefore not subject to regional cost planning and competitive procurements). Drawing a clear line in the sand that all transmission over 100 kV should be regionally planned, in line with FERC precedent,[8] would reduce the scope for such gamesmanship. A standardized planning regime will extend the architecture for competitive transmission procurements nationwide and remedy the recent deficit in regional transmission investment for non-RTO regions.

Recommendation #3: Stabilize and secure our grid. Establish minimum interregional transfer capability between Order No. 1000 regions.

This will improve grid reliability during adverse weather, reduce costs by allowing low-cost generation to access load centers, and support increased integration of variable renewable resources (in line with a net-zero trajectory). The devastating effects of Winter Storm Uri in Texas underscore the risks of insufficient interconnection capacity between regions. Given there is only 1.3 GW of transmission interconnections between the three grids that cover the U.S. (the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection and ERCOT) — versus more than 750 GW of combined load across these regions — mandatory minimum interregional transfer capability will be a well-deserved boon to the construction of new (competitively procured) transmission. While the required minimum amount of transfer capability can be debated, we propose 40% of peak load between regions as a starting point that can materially improve grid reliability and renewable energy deployment.

Decarbonizing America’s economy involves trillions of dollars of investment in new transmission. Maximizing bang-for-the-buck on such investment requires a framework that promotes competition, rather than one that defers to incumbent utilities at the expense of cost savings and innovation. More than a decade after Order 1000, it is time for FERC to tackle the more than 90% of transmission investment that has historically been insulated from competition. Adopting a new ISP standard, requiring that all transmission over 100 kV be regionally planned (consistent with an ISP standard and scope), and mandating minimum interregional transfer capabilities are three concrete ways for FERC to revitalize transmission competition and accelerate our progress toward net zero.  

Paul Segal is the CEO of LS Power. 

[1] Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, Princeton University. Oct. 29, 2021. Pp. 27-29. Cost estimate includes new lines and replacement of end-of-life lines, while two to five times refers to capacity of transmission system (measured in GW-km).  For reference, current U.S. annual average transmission investment is about $20 billion.  

[3] “Cost Savings Offered by Competition in Electric Transmission,” The Brattle Group. April 2019. pp. 5, 9.

[4] For reference, of the  about 600,000 miles of transmission lines in the U.S., about 360,000 are below 230 kV.

[5] 100 kV being consistent with NERC’s definition of the bulk power system.  

[6] For more detail on how an ISP would function, see “Comments of LS Power Grid, LLC in Response to the Commission’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” FERC Docket No. RM21-17, pp. 79-85.

[7] As part of enacting an ISP standard, FERC should also foreclose utility exits from their selected Order 1000 region for 10 years, unless the exit was found to both comply with FERC’s “just and reasonable” standard and to be in the public interest. LS Power believes that joining an RTO could be in the public interest.    

[8] Revision to Electric Reliability Organization Definition of Bulk Electric System, Order No. 743, 133 FERC ¶ 61,150 at P 73 (2010)

Posted on

FERC’s Republicans Irked by Declarations in PURPA Complaint

Republican FERC Commissioners James Danly and Mark Christie issued a partial dissent in an otherwise typical PURPA order Friday, criticizing the Democratic majority for making “unnecessary” declarations on the case.

All five commissioners agreed to not act on a qualifying facility’s petition to enforce a contract between it and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper), a decision allowing the QF to sue the state-owned utility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (EL22-29, QF15-850-003).

National Renewable Energy Corp.’s Magnolia Solar negotiated a power purchase agreement under which Santee Cooper would pay an avoided-cost rate, as required by PURPA, for five years for the output of its 42-MW solar project in Orangeburg County.

The dispute arose when Magnolia revised the draft PPA to a 20-year term.

In protest, Santee Cooper argued that “no LEO [legally enforceable obligation] was formed because Magnolia refused to accept Santee Cooper’s five-year term for the LEO, a term that Santee Cooper is entitled to set as a condition.”

FERC’s majority sided with the developer, declaring that “whether a LEO was established depends on the QF’s commitment to sell its output to the utility and not the utility’s actions.

“Magnolia’s demonstrated commitment to develop the QF, and expressed intent to sell its net output to Santee Cooper at an avoided-cost rate, supports the finding that a LEO was formed,” FERC said. “Santee Cooper’s insistence that Magnolia agree to a five-year term as condition precedent to establishing a LEO is inconsistent with commission precedent.”

Such decisions not to act are common.

“FERC typically declines to initiate enforcement actions requested by QFs,” Bracewell wrote in a 2018 blog post. “Instead, if FERC believes such petitions merit discussion, FERC’s practice is to issue a Notice of Intent not to Act and a declaratory order setting forth its position on the issues raised in the petition.”

Such declarations are unnecessary, Danly and Christie said in separate but similar partial dissents.

The Republicans — especially Danly — have been vocal since the beginning of their tenure about the commission being too proactive, preferring that it take a hands-off approach and letting Congress decide matters of policy. In this case, the two said the majority’s statements were superfluous because the commission took no action for which it needed to explain itself.

“While the commission may offer unnecessary declarations on any subject it chooses, I do not believe it should,” Danly wrote. “Responsible adjudication counsels minimalism, and the commission should be more circumspect.”

In a footnote, Danly listed other Notices of Intent not to Act in which “the commission has properly declined to include unnecessary declarations.”

“The declarations in this order will not aid the petitioner in court,” he wrote. “Should an action be initiated, the court has processes by which to adduce evidence; the law has not been changed or clarified by any of the order’s unnecessary declarations; and the precondition for initiating such a proceeding was fully consummated by the Notice of Intent not to Act.”

Posted on

Maryland Climate Bills Become Law Without Hogan’s Signature

In a surprise move, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) allowed two key pieces of climate-related legislation to become law on Friday without his signature.

The Climate Solutions Now Act, Senate Bill 528, resets the state’s emissions-reduction goals to 60% below 2006 levels by 2031 and net zero by 2045, while House Bill 740 requires Maryland’s State Retirement and Pension System to incorporate climate risk into its investment evaluations “to ensure a long-term sustainable portfolio.”

In a letter to the General Assembly announcing his decision to allow the two bills to become law, Hogan called both “example[s] of poor legislative practice and misguided resources resulting from partisan politics.” But, he said, “I will allow them to pass into law in the hopes they will generate future deliberation and discussion on this critically important issue.”

A veto of either bill would likely have faced a quick Democratic override, as did all 10 of the bills Hogan did veto, as reported by Maryland Matters. (See Md. General Assembly Sends Climate Solutions Bill to Hogan.)

In March, Hogan had called SB 528 a “reckless and controversial energy tax,” but in his letter, he said, “I am encouraged by some of the subsequent revisions to the bill that are more in line with my administration’s insistence on ambitious yet achievable climate solutions.”

HB 740 was well intended, he said, but it “sets a worrisome precedent and creates a slippery slope; instead of micromanaging our state retirement system, elected officials should allow our investment experts and professionals to do what they do best.”

Anticipating a veto of SB 528, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network had called for a rally at the Maryland State House in Annapolis on Saturday to support an override and “ensure this vital piece of legislation crosses the finish line.”

Sen. Paul Pinsky (D), SB 528’s chief sponsor, called the bill’s no-signature enactment “a great victory in addressing climate change.” Pinsky had worked to maintain support for the bill in the Senate after amendments approved in the House of Delegates cut or scaled back some of its key provisions, according to local media reports.

Cut entirely from the bill were provisions requiring that from 2023 to 2033, at least one new school in each school district be built to net-zero standards.

The bill’s broader provisions on building performance standards were another casualty. They would have required that new or renovation projects built with at least 25% state funding meet high-performance building standards developed by the Maryland Green Building Council. Emissions-reduction targets for large commercial buildings and multifamily dwellings were also cut, from 50% to 20% in 2030, and a net-zero target for 2035 was completely eliminated.

Instead, the new law calls for “the Public Service Commission and the Building Codes Administration to study and make recommendations on the electrification of buildings in the state.”

The House amendments also rebranded the Maryland Climate Justice Corps in the original Senate version as the Chesapeake Conservation Corps. The goal in both cases is to provide education and job training programs to help develop “green career ladders” for youth and young adults, but with a shift in focus from environmental justice to environmental conservation.

For example, while a primary purpose of the Climate Justice Corp would have been to “promote climate justice and assist the state in achieving its greenhouse gas emissions-reduction targets,” the corresponding goal of the Conservation Corps is to “promote, preserve, protect and sustain the environment.”

Distribution Planning for Climate Goals

Both new laws will go into effect June 1. Additional provisions of SB 528 include:

  • the establishment of a Climate Catalytic Capital Fund that will be used to start a green bond program and help finance and leverage private investment for a range of emission-reduction and clean energy programs. Initial allocations for the fund would be $5 million a year for 2024 to 2026.
  • a $50 million electric school bus pilot program that will allow utilities to test out the use of vehicle-to-grid technologies at times electric buses in the program are not in use.
  • a steady phase-in of EVs in the state’s passenger car fleet, with 100% of all new purchases electric or hybrid by 2028 and 100% of all other light-duty vehicles electric by 2033.

The House amendments to the bill also added a requirement for the PSC to submit a yearly report to the General Assembly on the status of the state’s distribution system and distribution planning processes. The first report is due on or before Dec. 1, 2024. It must cover how distribution planning and implementation is supporting the state’s climate goals, including reducing carbon emissions, improving efficiency and resilience, and increasing the amount of distributed energy resources on the grid.

Hailing the new law, Josh Tulkin, director of the Sierra Club’s Maryland chapter, said, “Climate solutions are good for our environment, our health and our wallets. With gas prices skyrocketing, this is a critical time for Maryland to invest in a clean energy future to help Marylanders reduce their reliance on fossil fuels for heating and cooking.”

HB 740 requires the Board of Trustees of the state pension funds to incorporate climate-risk assessments into its investment policy manual. The board is instructed to look at the climate-risk assessment policies and best practices of other states for possible adaptation in Maryland. The law also calls for a holistic assessment of climate risk, examining “the potential magnitude of the long-term risks and opportunities of multiple scenarios and related regulatory developments across industry sectors, asset classes, and the total portfolio of the several [retirement and pension] systems.”

Va.’s HB 1204

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) signed more than 100 bills in the first week of April, including one climate measure, according to a Friday press release.

HB 1204 seeks to promote the development of renewable energy projects within the state and, in particular, projects located on brownfields or former coal mine sites. Under the new law, the state’s two investor-owned utilities — Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power — will be required to comply with Virginia’s renewable portfolio standard in 2023 and 2024 by prioritizing the procurement of cost-competitive renewable energy credits (RECs) from eligible projects located in the state.

The two utilities will also be required to develop plans for acquiring cost-competitive RECs from in-state projects that are eligible for grants from a state program aimed at locating renewable energy projects on brownfield or former coal mine sites.

The Virginia Clean Economy Act (HB 1526) requires Dominion to decarbonize its power generation by 2045, with Appalachian Power to follow in 2050.

Posted on

Counterflow: Stop the Insanity

tesla powerwallSteve Huntoon | Steve Huntoon

Given current events, it should go without saying that sound energy policy is more important than ever.

Here’s a few no-brainers we should be doing: (1) banning “proof of work” cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin),[1] (2) HVAC (emphasis on AC) interconnections between ERCOT and the rest of the country,[2] (3) unique emergency ratings for interconnection studies,[3] (4) new technologies for increasing capacity of existing transmission lines,[4] (5) LED lighting[5] and, dare we keep saying it, (6) a carbon price/tax.[6]

Instead, new notions get traction that cross into insanity. Like the recent promotion of cryptocurrency mining as something that increases grid reliability.[7] The epicenter of this crackpot idea is Texas, which seems to have learned little from February of last year. Chief cheerleaders include Gov. Greg Abbott[8] and Sen. Ted Cruz.[9]

The crypto claim is that after crypto mining increases electric demand, it can then be curtailed when needed for reliability. Please note the bloody obvious: Increasing electric demand never increases reliability because increased demand can never be curtailed more than the increase. Think of the retailer increasing the list price so that the discount from list price can be bigger. Does the consumer save something?

The crypto rejoinder is that crypto demand incents new capacity so curtailment at peak actually could be beneficial. But as Berkeley professor Severin Borenstein points out: “Increasing demand at times when capacity is not scarce does not raise long-run investment in capacity. … Even if it increases price during off-peak times, that just leads to substitution of baseload for peaker capacity, but not more capacity”[10] (emphasis added).

Mic drop.

Another bit of crypto sophistry is the claim that crypto mining uses relatively more renewable energy than other electricity uses.[11] Beyond the problem that this claim relies on industry self-reports (and what bad guy self-reports?),[12] it misses the fundamental point that if this renewable energy wasn’t being used for crypto mining it would be displacing nonrenewable energy sources. Duh.

Here’s another howler from a congressional hearing on crypto and the grid: “Computing is a better battery.”[13] Come on, computing is no more battery than a poultry plant.

Need more insanity data points? In Miami, the new “MiamiCoin” is 95% off its high, and the mayor is having second thoughts on whether it can be relied on to fund the city and abolish taxes.[14] Who would have thought?

Farther south, the president of El Salvador — self-styled “coolest dictator in the world” — wants to build the world’s first “Bitcoin city” at the base of the Conchagua volcano.[15] What could possibly go wrong?

Bottom line: Let’s advance no-brainers and stop the insanity.

Columnist Steve Huntoon, principal of Energy Counsel LLP, and a former president of the Energy Bar Association, has been practicing energy law for more than 30 years.

[6] “’If we don’t put that price of carbon on the system, I don’t see how anything could work,’ Harvard economist William Hogan said in the last session of the daylong conference.” https://www.rtoinsider.com/articles/29867-epsa-members-renew-call-carbon-price

Posted on

PacifiCorp Utah Program Takes Read on EV Driver Needs

After spearheading an electric vehicle charging program that created two “electric highways” in Utah, PacifiCorp is using lessons learned to expand the project into six Western states, speakers said during a webinar last week.

PacifiCorp’s WestSmartEV program ran from 2017 to 2020. It involved installation of DC fast-chargers at 79 sites along I-15 and I-80. The program also included incentives for workplace installation of Level 2 chargers, a partnership with ride-share drivers, an EV car-share program for low-income residents and an electric bus project.

A second phase of the project, called WestSmart EV@Scale, is now underway. It will coordinate efforts to electrify over 42,000 miles of regional interstate and state highways in Utah, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming and Arizona.

The program’s focus includes underserved regions, urban mobility, freight and port electrification, and community and workplace charging.

Both programs received funding from the Department of Energy: $4 million for WestSmartEV and $6.6 million for WestSmart EV@Scale.

What Drivers Want

The webinar on Thursday was hosted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. James Campbell, PacifiCorp’s lead for the two programs, discussed lessons learned so far. Campbell is based at PacifiCorp’s Utah subsidiary, Rocky Mountain Power.

When deciding where to install DC fast chargers along I-15 and I-80, Campbell said it wasn’t quite as simple as drawing dots on a map every 50 miles.

Instead, he said, it was important to identify sites where drivers want to stop. For example, drivers weren’t that interested in a charging station in St. George, a retirement community near the Arizona border. Instead, they wanted to stop and charge in nearby Cedar City, a scenic highway access point.

And in a National Park component of the program, planners realized that many drivers travel from park to park on scenic highways rather than hopping on the interstate.

Co-location Benefits

Campbell said co-location of EV charging was a successful approach used in the programs.

One example is an electric-bus charging site in Park City, where there’s also charging for electric bikes and a few DC fast-charging stations. The co-location allowed infrastructure costs to be shared, Campbell said.

Uber and Lyft drivers also found the fast-charging stations, located about a mile off I-80, to be a convenient option on runs from the airport to Park City, one of their most lucrative routes.

Another way the approach can be used is through co-location of electric bus and train charging, Campbell said. As a train moves through the station and draws power, electricity to the buses can be turned down and then turned up again after the train has gone.

“That way you’re not creating these large peaks or these large demands,” Campbell said.

Unique Opportunity

Campbell described Utah as a unique opportunity for launching an EV charging program. When the first program started in 2017, the state had a very low EV adoption rate. But Campbell said there seemed to be latent demand as residents grew concerned about poor air quality, such as that seen in Salt Lake City in the winter.

The number of plug-in EVs registered in the state grew from 2,485 in 2017 to 12,522 in 2020, according to the final technical report on WestSmartEV.

The report also detailed results of the workplace charging project, which resulted in installation of 1,953 Level 2 chargers in the Salt Lake City area. A case study of EV charging at one company found that peak charging was between 7 and 10 a.m. Most charging was finished by 2 p.m., before the utility’s summer peak hours of 3 to 8 p.m.

“As a result, workplace charging is a preferred mode of charging for utilities,” the report concluded.

Another webinar speaker was Margaret Smith, technology manager in the DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office. Smith said information gleaned from the projects would help states prepare for EV project funding opportunities from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

“The insights and lessons learned from these projects are more relevant now than ever before,” Smith said.

Posted on

Connecticut City Pitches Model for Spokes in Northeast H2Hub

The City of Bridgeport wants to be an equity-focused spoke in a proposed Northeast Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub (H2Hub), community leaders told the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Wednesday.

“We are very interested in looking at what the supply chain is going to be for this hydrogen project and how our community fits into that,” said Adrienne Houël, CEO of Greater Bridgeport Community Enterprises.

In the process of preparing for an H2Hub, she said, Connecticut must consider the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative and environmental justice principles when working with hydrogen partners.

The governors of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts announced March 24 that they will work together, along with 40 hydrogen economy partners, to submit a proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for one of the H2Hub designations called for in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. A hub, as defined by the act, is a network of hydrogen producers, consumers and connected infrastructure in close proximity to one other.

DEEP held a public listening session Wednesday to gain insights on hydrogen opportunities in the state, including the H2Hub collaboration, for the 2022 update of Connecticut’s Comprehensive Energy Strategy.

In Bridgeport, a state-designated environmental justice community, 40 individuals and organizations representing different segments of the city’s communities formed a regional energy partnership last year. The group is building on the city’s 14-year sustainability journey with a mission to ensure that the benefits of energy development, such as an H2Hub, extend to energy-burdened communities, said Jefferey Leichtman, a consultant speaking on behalf of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council.

Development of a hub, Leichtman said, needs to ensure residents understand the benefits of any new technologies sited in their communities and that those benefits are well-documented.

Houël sees the Bridgeport regional partnership as a model that can be adapted for other communities in the Northeast if a H2Hub develops there.

The partnership “is structured around the idea that you want to get all components of the community involved and get them to focus on what the community needs are,” she said. To advance its mission of early education, the group is already planning a hydrogen economy briefing at the end of April.

“We can’t expect people, on our say so, to accept all of the different safety and environmental issues around clean energy production,” Leichtman said.

Hub Proposals

The four states participating in the Northeast H2Hub coalition have agreed to develop a hub proposal in collaboration with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Individual state entities will be responsible for ensuring the proposal aligns with environmental justice and state-level climate goals. The New York Power Authority and Empire State Development will provide additional strategic direction to the coalition partners throughout the proposal development process.

Several other state partnerships are also underway.

Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico announced plans in February to create the Western Inter-States Hydrogen Hub, and the governors of Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas jointly announced their decision in mid-March to coordinate on a hub proposal. (See Mountain States Partner to Secure Hydrogen Hub.)

In the Midwest, a business alliance that includes Equinor and GE Gas Power said it will work with regional stakeholders on a “shared vision” for a hub in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

In Washington, lawmakers moved a bill quickly through the legislature that is designed to improve the state’s chances of receiving a hub designation. Gov. Jay Inslee signed the bill March 31. (See Green Hydrogen Bill Passes Wash. Legislature.)

Each hub designated by the DOE will demonstrate a “complete ecosystem of hydrogen,” including “production, processing, delivery, storage and end use,” said Brian Hunter, technology manager at the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office. To ensure feedstock diversity, one hub must produce hydrogen from fossil fuel, one from nuclear power and one from renewable energy, but Hunter said DOE anticipates hub proposals will have a mix of the three technologies.

The agency received more than 300 responses to its H2Hub request for information, but there are still opportunities to provide input on the hydrogen funding opportunities, he said. (See DOE Gets Hydrogen Hub Advice from Industry and Others.)

Earlier this year, DOE launched H2 Matchmaker, a voluntary online tool to facilitate hydrogen team formation.

The interactive map contains details on self-reported producers, consumers and potential providers and operators, as well as other key entities and stakeholders, Hunter said.

Posted on

NEPOOL Participants Committee Briefs: April 7, 2022

Board of Directors Elections

ISO-NE and NEPOOL are getting ready to set up elections for two spots on the grid operator’s Board of Directors.

Board Chair Cheryl LaFleur is up for re-election, and she took questions from stakeholders at the NEPOOL Participants Committee meeting on Thursday.

There’s also a vacant seat on the board. The Nominating and Governance Committee — made up of current board members, NEPOOL sector chairs and a representative chosen by the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners — has chosen a candidate, although it’s keeping the name confidential.

“Maintaining the confidentiality of prospective director candidates is done to protect their privacy, as most candidates do not wish to have their identities publicly revealed in the early stages of the process,” RTO spokesperson Matt Kakley said. “Search firms have advised that this confidentiality is necessary to attract highly qualified candidates.”

The secrecy of the RTO’s board elections have been criticized in the past by the states and others. (See ISO-NE, States Seek to Build on ‘Alignment’ Efforts.)

Winter’s Over, Now Get Ready for Winter

After successfully navigating potentially tricky grid conditions during the 2021/2022 winter, ISO-NE isn’t taking any time to rest on its laurels.

The grid operator is diving back in to prepare for next winter, when many of the same worries will remain about pipeline constraints and fuel availability colliding with potentially extreme conditions.

“The winter weather forecast will continue to be a critical factor for the operational outlook and will be closely monitored,” COO Vamsi Chadalavada said in a presentation to the PC.

In keeping an eye on cold weather, the RTO is planning for some tactics old and new. Like in 2021, officials are going to perform a 90-day forward-looking energy analysis ahead of next winter, looking at different scenarios to try to better understand risk.

But they’re also trying something fresh: a tabletop exercise along with transmission and distribution owners to try to “evaluate existing operational processes and communication protocols that would be used during an energy emergency.”

The exercise will include a simulated energy emergency leading to multiple days of shortages, giving the RTO and TOs a chance to practice rotating load shed to manage the energy deficiencies.

Work Plan Updates

Chadalavada also presented changes to ISO-NE’s work plan for 2022.

Most notably, the RTO is changing its approach for resource capacity accreditation, a hot-button project linked to the removal of the minimum offer price rule. Rather than splitting the project into two separate stages for FCAs 18 and 19, the grid operator is going to move forward with it as one for just the latter.

ISO-NE is planning to begin discussions this summer, with a “detailed design” presented by the end of the year and a FERC filing at some point in 2023.

Also newly included in the work plan is ISO-NE’s adoption of a project to develop a way for retired resources to return to service in more circumstances and to enhance the flexibility of retirement delist bids, which has been working its way through the NEPOOL process but hadn’t been accepted by the RTO yet as part of its yearly plan.

Consent Agenda

The PC voted to approve changes to tariff schedules 18 (MTF; MTF Service) and 24 (Incorporation by Reference of NAESB Standards) to comply with the requirements of FERC Order 676-J, as recommended by the Transmission Committee at its March 23 meeting.

Posted on

Ann Arbor Using Federal Funds for Solar Panels

Ann Arbor, Michigan, officials voted to use the largest portion of the city’s $24 million federal stimulus money to place solar panels on as many as 18 municipal buildings.

When completed, the project should generate 4 MW of electricity, enough to power 550 houses, said Missy Stults, Ann Arbor’s sustainability and innovation director.

City council voted 10-1 this week to use $4.5 million of the $24 million in federal monies for the solar project.

Stults said the initial designs for the solar panel projects are competed and that she is working on final pricing.  Stults said she plans to present the council with a proposed contract at its May 2 meeting, break ground on construction in June and have all the projects completed by winter.

At least 17 buildings will get solar panels, Stults said, though she hoped pricing would allow 18 to get the panels. Ironically, one building that will not get the panels is Ann Arbor’s City Hall, though panels will go on a nearby parking garage. “We have a crowded roof,” Stults said.

Panels will be installed on every major park facility, the city’s water and sewage treatment plants and at its airport. All the buildings will still have utility hookups.

Stults also said decisions are being made on locating EV chargers at the sites.  One building that will likely get EV chargers is the downtown farmer’s market, which is an open space with a roof structure.

A spokesperson for the Michigan Municipal League said the organization is encouraging communities to include sustainability projects in their projected spending of federal funds, but he did not know whether any other city in the state had plans for projects.

Posted on

SEC’s Proposed Climate Rule: ‘Materiality’ is the Question

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed rule issued March 21 to require standardized disclosure by public corporations of the impact of their practices on the environment follows a dramatic increase in the demand for such disclosure from investors, a former commissioner said.

“It is important to recognize and to acknowledge the amount of progress that businesses have already made on this front, that this rulemaking takes place against what is a dramatic increase in climate-related disclosures that companies, facing interest and pressure from various stakeholders, have chosen to disclose,” former SEC Commissioner Troy Paredes said in a discussion Thursday at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

“And that actually is exactly what ‘market discipline’ and private ordering would predict,” he added in a discussion with BPC senior adviser Tim Doyle about the role of the SEC and its relationship with corporations as well as investors. “I think that’s an important backdrop, worth taking some note of.

“It’s important to recognize that there are shifts in terms of market expectations of one type or another. There are different stakeholders demanding different information for one reason or another.”

But this climate-related rule comes at a time when President Biden has made addressing climate change a whole-of-government issue with his January 2021 executive order, Doyle noted.

And “in May of 2021, he issued an executive order dealing with climate-related financial risk. I think you could make a pretty good argument that this rule has at least some connection with [the executive order], especially given the language that is in that executive order about a consistent, clear, comparable and accurate disclosure of climate financial risks,” he said.

Paredes, an appointee of President George W. Bush who served on the SEC from 2008 to 2013, said the climate issue is not new and that the market is already further along in the process than otherwise might be expected.

“From a company’s perspective, it strikes me that this rulemaking is extraordinarily consequential,” he added.

The question of “materiality” — that is, what to report — is at the heart of controversy about the SEC proposal, Paredes and Doyle agreed.

They also agreed that deciding what’s material has been an issue without a concrete definition since Congress created the SEC in 1934 in response to the stock market crash of 1929. The issue evolved gradually over time, except when Congress passed new legislation from time to time setting out specific requirements.

“The way it gets articulated … is investor protection; fair, orderly and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation. They are often times identified as three separate parts to the SEC mission,” Paredes said. “The fact of the matter is that they intersect, and they support one another, but there may be instances where they can come into some tension,” he added in reference to the growing controversy over the rule, approved by a 3-1 vote. The rule will become effective in December unless challenged in court and could cost corporations billions of dollars to comply.

“I think there’s widespread agreement that the SEC’s core operating tool is disclosure,” Paredes said, “to get investor information in the hands of investors so that investors can make better informed decisions about how to allocate their capital. And the focus there in particular has been historically on material information.”

The proposal could require a company to disclose not only the impact of its operations on the environment but also the environmental impact of its products, if any, and the impact of its suppliers — requirements sure to be debated in the coming months.

To that coming battle, Paredes pointed out that historically, the SEC’s rules have leaned toward allowing the market, rather than the government, to decide.

“Go back to the founding of the SEC, [and there has been] a recognition that it’s better to allow the marketplace to decide how capital is going to be allocated as compared to the government making the decisions around capital allocation. And again, the means to facilitate that is to give information to investors so they can make those decisions in an informed way but still in lieu of the government making those decisions.”

Doyle agreed, adding that the tension between a hard and fast rule and giving companies the ability within a framework to disclose information has been at the heart of many of the commission’s corporate requirements.

Paredes added that even when Congress ordered the SEC to issue new rules in a particular area, over subsequent years “everything has always been a bit of a blend” of rules and reasonable practice. He said requirements that started out as guidance sometimes become a bit more rule-like over decades of interpretation.

“The demarcation sometimes can be a bit a bit blurry. But I do think it comes down as a practical matter in some respects, to how much discretion does the board [or] management team have in fashioning disclosures versus how much of that is going to be dictated more prescriptively by the regulator,” he said.