Search
`
November 20, 2024

Posted on

Trump’s Victory and its Implications for FERC, Power Markets

The ramifications of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory are going to be bigger elsewhere, but FERC and the industries it regulates will see their share. 

Independent regulatory agencies are never at the top of campaign debates, and it is unclear how much Trump will pull from the plans the Heritage Foundation made for him in the so-called Project 2025, which included changes proposed for the commission by former Trump FERC appointee Bernard McNamee. (See Plan for GOP President: Cut Climate Programs, Re-Examine RTOs.) 

FERC is partisan by design, with members appointed from both parties by the president. This article is focused on Republican appointees, since they will be setting the tone for the next few years. “I think people are feeling that they’re being treated inequitably,” said former FERC Commissioner Nora Mead Brownell. “I think the economic divide grows wider, and I think that gave people a reason to ignore the [misogynistic], racist comments and buy into a promise that we know from the previous administration will never come to be. And on the flip side, Biden stayed too long, and I don’t think that they ever got their economic message out sufficiently. That’s what people cared about.” 

Brownell was appointed to FERC by President George W. Bush, but she is no fan of Trump and spoke to us from London, where she went to escape the elections. She said the results are “mind boggling.” 

One of the biggest questions facing the agency is whom Trump will pick for chair. It has a full slate of commissioners with two Republicans: Mark Christie and Lindsay See. Sources favor See, but the question remains open. 

Another key question for the future composition of FERC is whether Chair Willie Phillips will step down once the gavel is taken away from him, opening a seat for Trump to fill. Chairs tend to leave after a demotion, but Cheryl LaFleur did not, so there is precedent for Phillips remaining. FERC did not respond Nov. 6 to questions about Phillips’ future. 

“They could appoint a chairman, and they could try and steer away from power markets,” Brownell said. 

Utilities, however, have benefited from organized markets, so that would run into opposition, but FERC can exert significant control over the RTOs, and a new commission might try to expand to help the new administration’s policy priorities, she added. It is unclear which way that will go because in a two-party system, the Republicans still have plenty of internal policy debates, she said, adding that she wonders whether traditional GOP “conservatives” or “Trumpers” will win out. 

Brownell put R Street Institute in the former category and its Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Devin Hartmann, a former FERC staffer, told us a lot of the future depends on Phillips’ decision and the makeup of the Senate.  

“There’s a few things that I think that Chairman Phillips has worked on that he wants to see through, and so I’m curious to see if he wants to sort of realize that his legacy could still be executed by sticking around,” Hartmann said. 

That would be a new situation for FERC with a majority of the party not in the White House until Phillips’ term expires in 2026. When it comes to the Senate, whether the GOP’s majority stays in the low 50s or reaches in the mid-50s would have implications for how easily Trump appointees can be confirmed, Hartmann said. 

A narrow majority would give the most moderate Republicans on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), more sway, while a wider margin would allow more conservative voices to take on that role. Hartmann pointed to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) as an important voice with a larger majority. 

“Senator Lee is a very principled conservative, and while some of the rhetoric on FERC specifically has raised eyebrows, he really believes in executing its role fairly and not favoring certain industries,” Hartmann said. 

That has been demonstrated in some of the debates around permitting reform where Lee did not want to carve out policies that favor oil and gas exclusively, favoring technology-neutral approaches instead, he added. 

Cato Institute Director of Energy and Environmental Policy Studies Travis Fisher said his think tank aims to be bipartisan, but his experience includes working on Commissioner McNamee’s personal staff and being the lead author of the Department of Energy’s 2017 Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability. (See FERC’s Independence to be Tested by DOE NOPR.) 

“From my point of view, the odds of getting good free market policy out of the [Democratic] Party — that seems slim,” Fisher said. “So, I’m optimistic that we might have generally more free market policy. But of course, there’s things to not like about each party.” 

One campaign promise Trump made that implicates FERC is to cut utility bills in half, and one way the commission could try to address affordability is to investigate why years of low wholesale power prices, driven by cheap natural gas, have not lowered bills for retail consumers. 

“I’ve put in a few filings at FERC, but you know, it’s one thing to say you’re creating savings at the wholesale level, but they have not really shown how that passes through to actual savings for people paying retail bills,” Fisher said. “And I suspect the crossover between federal and state jurisdiction is going to get a little bit more scrutiny.” 

One issue we brought up with everyone was whether the second Trump administration would try to put its thumb on the scale for coal, as it did with a notice of proposed rulemaking Energy Secretary Rick Perry filed with Fisher’s involvement. He said he doubted that would happen again but declined to discuss it in detail. 

That effort was rejected unanimously by FERC, including three of his appointees — then-Chair Kevin McIntyre and Commissioners Robert Powelson and Neil Chatterjee. Whether the agency gets independent-minded commissioners under Trump depends on who is nominated, Fisher said. 

The Fate of Transmission Reform

A focus of FERC under President Joe Biden has been to reform transmission planning, which led to Order 1920. That was passed along partisan lines of the three-member commission this summer, with Commissioner Christie arguing that the Democrats were favoring the growth of wind and solar above other concerns. 

The majority on the House Energy & Natural Resources Committee made its views known, sending letters to FERC and other agencies to stop any “partisan” policymaking.  

“The results of the 2024 presidential election are now apparent, and leadership of … FERC will soon change,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) wrote. “As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power, FERC should immediately stop work on any partisan or controversial item under consideration, consistent with applicable law and regulation. There are many bipartisan, consensus items that FERC could pursue to fulfill its mission before the end of your tenure. I urge you to focus your attention on these matters.” 

Grid Strategies President Rob Gramlich has been one of the biggest supporters of Order 1920 and he argued the rule still would benefit Trump’s agenda, which is heavy on expanding cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. 

“I think the tech investors and executives are really going to want to see a grid expanded to accommodate power demand growth,” Gramlich said. “And, of course, power demand growth is a key part of Order 1920.” 

FERC could still issue its rehearing order on the rule in the next couple of months, but the change in leadership has implications for how the rule will be implemented and will likely mean a “retreat” from Biden-era policies, he added. 

A big part of the future of transmission reform depends on where Commissioner See comes down, said R Street’s Hartmann. While a lot of the political discourse around the rule has pitted it as trampling states’ rights (one of her top issues), the technical aspects of its changes have been embraced by state commissioners. 

“I think the big question mark will be whether she can decipher the technical merits of Order 1920 from some of the political posturing that we’ve seen from certain states and recognize that actually the states that have been more engaged on transmission issues really do respect the core aspects of Order 1920,” he added. 

Fisher said he was not against expanding the grid as needed, but he doubted it would remain a priority under Trump. 

“We should be candid that the grid might need some transmission, but really the need and the main cause for new transmission is wind and solar, especially wind,” Fisher said. 

If you can characterize transmission expansion as a low-cost option for meeting new demand, then it will get some focus, but FERC will not be mandating grid planning to enable the energy transition or universalizing the costs of state clean energy and climate policies, he added. Arguments about needing to expand the grid to ensure reliability going forward are overblown, he said. 

“It seemed to me to be sort of a false front, that it was just a reason to try to get the right-of-center on board with building more transmission,” Fisher said. 

The Election’s Impact on Resource Adequacy Issues

Reliability is likely to going to be a common theme at FERC under Trump, as it has been under Chair Phillips. There may be differences in how to get there  

President Trump will terminate EPA’s power plant rule, which Fisher noted drew concerned comments from some of the organized markets over its implementation. (See RTOs Seek More Flexible Compliance in Appeal of Power Plant Rule.) 

The end of the power plant rule means that states will not be forced to shut down existing dispatchable generation too early, said Competitive Enterprise Institute Research Fellow Paige Lambert. Coal will not be making a comeback due to cheap shale gas, regardless of Trump’s policy priorities, but the new administration means existing plants will run longer. 

“The focus there really should be on not prematurely closing any existing capacity that we have because prematurely closing reliable capacity like the power plant rule was going to do is going to really undermine reliability in a pretty damaging way,” Lambert said. 

While keeping more coal and natural gas units will add more supply to the resource adequacy equation, the change in policies from the election can also have an impact there. 

MISO did not want to weigh in deeply on the election, as it strives to be nonpartisan, but during a Nov. 6 Resource Adequacy Subcommittee meeting, Director of Strategic Initiatives and Assessments Jordan Bakke briefly invoked the results when discussing the upcoming Regional Resource Assessment, which attempts to project MISO’s resource profile and capacity needs over the next 20 years. He said the differing policies of presidential administrations complicate a clear view of the future generation mix. 

“That and a lot of other things are making [members’] resource planning more challenging,” Bakke said.  

Amanda Durish Cook contributed to this article. 

Posted on

What Will Trump’s Victory Mean for US Energy Policy?

Former President Donald Trump’s victory and future return to the White House will certainly be a setback, but it “won’t be a death knell to the clean energy transition,” Dan Lashof, U.S. director of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement released Nov. 6.

“Most U.S. state, local and private sector leaders are committed to charging ahead,” he said.

Lashof was one of a small army of bleary-eyed energy industry leaders and analysts who had stayed up late following election returns Nov. 5 but were ready to offer some sharp insights on what’s ahead for federal energy policy, regulation and legislation with Trump in the White House and a Republican-led Senate and, possibly, House.

Control of the House was still undecided at NetZero Insider’s deadline on Nov. 6, with the GOP winning 204 seats to the Democrats’ 188, according to The New York Times.

With more than 400 attendees listening in, a post-election webinar, hosted by Bracewell LLP, a policy and advocacy law firm, first dug into the role energy played in Trump’s victory.

Energy was tied up in voters’ concerns about the economy and inflation, which drove a major realignment of working-class voters toward the Republican party, a critical factor in the GOP victory, said Scott Segal, co-chair of Bracewell’s Policy Resolution Group.

“It’s very present in people’s lives. They get a bill every month regarding it. They pass signage as they drive along and see what the price of another energy commodity is,” Segal said.

“Americans are like, I paid less for gas under [Trump]. The end,” agreed Jonathan Martin, senior political columnist at POLITICO.

On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats were hesitant to “put climate front and center, climate per se,” said Liam Donovan, senior political strategist at Bracewell. “You ended up with this weird, untenable business where Harris is on stage in Pennsylvania, talking about how she’s not going to ban fracking. So, it put them on the defensive, whereas the Republicans were able to play offense.”

A wide range of views are now surfacing on what Trump will do on energy policy once back in the White House

The first clues will be who he appoints to key agencies like the Energy Department and the EPA. “Personnel is policy,” Donovan said. “It’s not just about what Donald Trump wants to do, what he has to do. It’s what the people around him intend to do, who are in key positions. What is their agenda, and how does that play out on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue?”

While no announcements have been made, outgoing North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) has generated significant buzz as a possible energy secretary.

In Congress, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is in line to become the GOP Senate whip, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is likely to take over as chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Segal said.

He described Lee as “a small government kind of guy. He’s a constitutionalist … [not] a policy empire builder.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) will move from ranking member to chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

On the still undecided House side, if the Democrats squeak out a majority, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) would likely become chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. If Republicans remain in control, Segal sees a three-way contest for committee chair, between Reps. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), with Guthrie having the edge.

Segal noted that Guthrie has focused more on health issues on the committee. But during a speech at the National Clean Energy Week Policymakers Symposium in September, Guthrie labeled Democratic energy policies as “disruptive,” based on radical scare tactics or misinformation. (See The Buzz at NCEW: The Election, Permitting and IRA Tax Credits.)

DOE and the IRA

What’s ahead for Democrats in Congress could be a renewed focus on bipartisanship, said Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), fresh from her own reelection victory. As a Democrat from a Midwest district with former coal mining towns, Budzinski favors an “all of the above” energy transition, recognizing that getting to a clean energy economy will take time.

She would like to see the Treasury Department finalize tax guidance for the 45Z tax credit for biofuels and sustainable aviation fuels, an issue she sees as ripe for bipartisan action, whether by the outgoing Biden administration or the incoming Trump White House.

“I’ve met with my growers who [say], ‘The uncertainty is what’s killing us, and we need that guidance sooner rather than later,’” Budzinski said. Biofuels could be “a win-win throughout the Midwest, where we grow so much corn and soybeans. This is a brand-new market. That’s the thing I hear from my farmers; first and foremost, they want new markets.”

Budzinski’s focus on the potential economic gains that tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act can provide for her constituents reflects what many hope will be bipartisan support to defend at least some of the law’s clean energy tax credits and other incentives.

Segal believes the economic momentum the IRA has created in many red states and congressional districts will make it unlikely the law will face a full repeal. He pointed to the Aug. 6 letter from 18 GOP congress members, calling on Speaker of House Mike Johnson (R-La.) to protect the law’s clean energy tax credits.

Johnson replied that any changes to the law would be made with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

But other analysts have questioned this conventional wisdom. Speaking at the recent Southeast Renewable Energy Conference, Keith Martin, an energy and tax expert at Norton Rose Fulbright, cautioned that as soon as Trump enters the White House he could issue “a Day 1 order telling executive agencies to stop issuing guidance and to stop spending money on the [IRA].”

And if Republicans take control of both houses of Congress, Martin expects them to “cannibalize parts of the Inflation Reduction Act to pay for extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts that expire at the end of next year.” (See SE Renewable Energy Conference Hears Blunt Talk on Trump.)

Barrasso also has a long record of opposition to the IRA and, as ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has repeatedly called for its repeal, labeling it “irresponsible, reckless [and] alarming.”

Another challenge, Segal said, is that many of the programs and incentives in the IRA and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act have not been fully implemented, raising questions about how the transition to the incoming Trump administration will be handled at the Department of Energy.

Mark Menezes, a former deputy secretary of energy for Trump, noted first that DOE has doubled its staff over the past four years specifically to administer the funds in both laws. The handover from one administration to the next will involve the creation of extensive documentation — online “briefing books” — that detail “the offices, what their mission is, the statutory basis, the expenditures, the amount of obligated funds that are all part of these programs.”

The information is used to help prepare new DOE officials for Senate confirmation and decide “whether these programs would likely be continued or not,” said Menezes, who is currently CEO of the U.S. Energy Association.

“One hallmark of the first Trump administration was to not pick winners and losers on technologies or types of energy,” he said. “For example, renewables weren’t forced on a particular group if they did not want to have renewable power.”

Such policies were changed by the Biden administration, and Menezes expects the second Trump administration will again “look for where restrictions exist that do not allow choice by those that need the energy and need affordable energy, to make choices that fit the local community.”

Industry Reactions

Like Budzinski, clean energy organizations have focused on the economic development and jobs the industry has generated as a first step toward working with Trump.

Congratulating the president-elect on his victory, Mark Widmar, CEO at First Solar, said, “We look forward to engaging with him, his administration and Congress on a shared agenda to ensure a level playing field for American manufacturing and supply chains, safeguard American jobs and win the energy technology race against China with American innovation.”

“The advanced energy industry is an immense economic force in America, powering a manufacturing renaissance in towns of all sizes and political preference, and creating financial opportunity in every state in the country, said Heather O’Neill, CEO of Advanced Energy United. “America has only just started to tap into the incredible economic potential of advanced energy. With both parties in agreement that energy costs in America are too high and our energy infrastructure in need of rebuilding, advanced energy technologies are the solution to both, right now and in the years ahead.”

Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, also focused on the increasing role of solar and storage in cutting energy costs for consumers. “America’s solar and storage industry is unleashing abundant, homegrown energy that is creating jobs and delivering affordable, reliable power to every home and business in this country,” Hopper said.

Like others, Hopper said SEIA looks forward to working with the Trump administration “to ensure the solar and storage industry, as well as the domestic manufacturing renaissance we’ve seen over the last few years, continue to thrive and play a vital role in America’s energy economy.”

But Alex McDonough, board chair of the advocacy group Clean Energy for America, called the election results “disappointing” and promised a fight against any efforts to roll back the IRA’s tax credits and incentives.

“If President-elect Trump attempts to repeal the country’s clean energy plan, including critical tax credits, he will fail,” McDonough said. “Cities, states, companies and workers are pushing America forward on our clean energy future and economy because it’s the right direction for our economy, security and climate. We hope Donald Trump and Republican leaders will pursue bipartisan solutions to cut families’ costs, defend American security and innovation, and boost energy independence with clean power.”

Posted on

Clean Energy Sectors Brace for Impact of Trump 2.0

Attempts to quantify the impact former President Donald Trump’s re-election will have on the energy sector are complicated by the sheer number of moving pieces and his unpredictable leadership style.

The morning after Trump’s comeback victory, many deeply knowledgeable people were sharing their opinions, often backed up with inarguable facts. However, Nov. 6 is still too early to predict what impact Trump will have on generation and transmission investment and policy.

As the day began, bond yields jumped, many clean energy stocks tanked, and the U.S. dollar’s value surged on expectations of what might happen in the next few years. But many variables remain unknown:

    • Trump’s promised tariffs might boost the cost of development, but corporate tax cuts might ease the pressure, and increased deficit spending might boost the cost of debt.
    • His America First stance could create macroeconomic trends in its own right.
    • Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress could greatly empower the president, but perhaps not on every issue, as the margin of control is likely to be thin.
    • Trump has pledged to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, but some of the clearest economic benefits from the landmark measure have been in Republican states whose congressional representatives likely would want to protect them.
    • Trump has promised to increase and expedite domestic oil and gas production, but the U.S. already is producing more than any country ever has. And his threatened sanctions on Venezuela and Iran might alter commodity prices, as might his promised end to the Russia-Ukraine war.

To be sure, there were some clear losers from Trump’s re-election.

The Wall Street Journal summed the mood up in a single headline: “Why Trump’s Victory Is So Dangerous for Clean-Energy Companies.”

Three disparate examples: NextEra Energy, Plug Power and Sunrun closed 5.3%, 21.8% and 29.6% lower, respectively, on a day when the major U.S. stock indices all catapulted to record highs.

In its first take on the results, research and strategy firm Jeffries said there were more losers than winners, with the offshore wind, electric vehicle, hydrogen, residential solar and storage sectors at greatest risk. Inflation and Federal Reserve policy would be key determinants, it said.

But not every player in the “green” sector slumped on the election results.

GE Vernova, which follows the all-of-the-above strategy that some Republicans embrace, closed 6.5% higher. EV industry leader Tesla, whose CEO campaigned hard for the soon-to-be EV skeptic-in-chief, saw its stock close 14.8% higher.

Wind power, which Trump dismissed with an expletive at an October campaign rally, might very well have a tough few years ahead — especially in the offshore sector, which has been struggling to build momentum in U.S. waters and relies heavily on federal financial support.

Even if it cannot find a legally defensible means to halt the projects under construction or revoke leases and approvals, the Trump administration could stop defending the many lawsuits against these projects or slow-walk the regulatory process.

Speakers at a major offshore wind energy industry conference in Atlantic City, N.J., just a week before Election Day, put a brave face on the matter, but many were clearly hoping Vice President Kamala Harris would pull out a victory and clearly worried about the prospect of her defeat. (See WINDPOWER: Industry Puts on Game Face as Election Nears.)

The world’s leading offshore wind developer, Ørsted, and leading Western wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, both saw their stock close 12.8% lower Nov. 6. Vestas had announced its first U.S. offshore turbine contract just eight weeks earlier.

The need for increased electrical generation and transmission capacity to support the U.S. economy and lifestyle does not change with Trump’s election. There is partisan disagreement, sometimes strident, on how to meet that need but broad agreement that it must be met.

With Trump returning to power and the party united behind him, there were many long faces in the clean energy and environmental advocacy communities Nov. 6.

“Donald Trump was a disaster for climate progress during his first term, and everything he’s said and done since suggests he’s eager to do even more damage this time,” Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous said in a statement. The organization filed more than 300 lawsuits against his first administration and pledged to fight tooth and nail against any predations on the environment during the second.

Damage control was the order of the day after an election with a clear and uncontested result. While the climate and energy transition were not among the top speaking points of either candidate, there was no mistaking where they both stood.

Large industry groups spoke of moving forward.

American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet congratulated Trump and reminded him that its members share his stated goals: bringing manufacturing back to U.S. communities and creating jobs.

“Domestically produced clean power is vital to meeting our nation’s surging electricity demand,” he said. “Our industry grew by double digits each year under the first Trump administration and has accelerated this rate of progress since. We are committed to working with the Trump-Vance administration and the new Congress to continue this great American success story.”

Oceantic Network tried embracing rather than vilifying Trump. It credited his first administration with laying the groundwork for what is now a $40 billion U.S. industry that has directly invested $24 billion in 39 states and said Trump now can do more, and better. “With President Trump in office, we have the opportunity to harness even more investment and measurable economic benefits for communities across the country,” CEO Liz Burdock said. “The U.S. offshore wind industry stands ready to welcome new investments in American factories and shipyards.”

Posted on

Wash. Voters Resoundingly Reject Cap-and-Invest Repeal Attempt

Washington voters showed overwhelming support for the state’s fledging cap-and-invest system Nov. 5 when they firmly rejected a ballot measure that sought to repeal the program. 

I-2117, which would have repealed the 2021 Climate Commitment Act, failed on a 62%-38% vote. 

The program, which is administered by Washington’s Department of Ecology, auctions permits that allow industrial polluters to emit greenhouse gases and has raised $2.1 billion for the state to fund environmental projects since it went into effect in early 2023. Most of the money is earmarked for programs to combat climate change, from electric ferries to alternative energy projects, salmon habitat restoration and electric vehicle charging stations. 

Critics had blamed the program for gasoline price increases of 21 to 50 cents per gallon, but fuel prices have fluctuated since the auctions began, making it difficult to pin down the program’s impact because numerous other factors also influence prices. (See Cap-and-trade Driving up Washington Gasoline Prices, Critics Say.) 

Funded by suburban Seattle hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, I-2117 was one of four initiatives on the state ballot Nov. 5 supported by Heywood’s Lets Go Washington organization and the state Republican Party hoping to repeal four state laws passed since 2021. Three of those initiatives, including the one to revoke cap-and-invest, failed. The one successful initiative, I-2066, which forbids the state from implementing any future bans on using natural gas, passed narrowly. 

Washington is negotiating with California and Quebec on the creation of a joint carbon market by 2025 to lower auction prices for emissions, which could lead to lower fuel prices in all three jurisdictions. The effort could even expand as other states, such as New York, watch the market’s development closely as they consider setting up similar programs that would link up with the alliance. 

Posted on

SPP State Commissioners Win Re-election Bids

Kristie Fiegen and Randy Christmann, Republican regulatory commissioners from the Dakotas who sit on SPP’s Regional State Committee, both won re-election to six-year terms Nov. 5.

Fiegen, chair of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission and SPP’s Resource Energy and Adequacy Leadership (REAL) Team, bested Democratic and Libertarian challengers, taking 67.8% of the vote with more than 95% of the vote in.

Christmann, chair of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, defeated Democratic challenger Tracey Wilkie, garnering 70% of the vote with 95% of the ballots counted. He advocates for transmission projects that strengthen the grid, which he has said is “on the verge of collapsing.”

Fiegen was appointed to the commission in 2011 and won her first election in 2012. Christmann was also first elected in 2012. Both have served as the RSC’s president since then.

“I am grateful that South Dakota voters continue to trust my judgment as their public utilities commissioner,” Fiegen told RTO Insider.

For Fiegen, the election came with a new perspective. She left the campaign trail and stepped away from her SPP duties in September after her husband, Tim, suffered a major heart attack, his second, while they were in the Black Hills.

She immediately conducted CPR as her brother guided her over telephone. Fortunately, a group of firefighters was in a cabin less than a mile away. They arrived within minutes with a defibrillator and took over CPR, eventually resuscitating Tim.

The survival rate for sudden cardiac arrest is less than 10%, Fiegen said.

“We are blessed to have our South Dakota family pray for us” for more than five weeks, she said. “We are grateful and blessed.”

In other SPP and ERCOT regulatory elections:

    • Brian Bingman (R) won the open seat on the three-person Oklahoma Corporation Commission, receiving nearly 64% of the vote against two challengers. He replaces Bob Anthony, who left the OCC after serving six consecutive six-year terms; he was first elected in 1988 and, six years later, became the first Republican incumbent in the state’s history to win statewide re-election to a state office.
    • Jean-Paul Coussan (R) won a tight race for an open seat in District 2 of the Louisiana Public Service Commission, securing 54% of the ballots against a fellow Republican and a Democrat. He replaces Craig Greene, who stepped down after one term and was the five-person PSC’s swing vote. Coussan gives the commission a 3-2 Republican majority.
    • Christi Craddick (R) won re-election to the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry. She took 55.4% of the vote with 96.07% of the ballots counted, fending off three other candidates. Craddick chairs the RRC and was first elected in 2012.
Posted on

Former ERCOT Market Monitor Joins SPP’s MMU

Former ERCOT Independent Market Monitor Carrie Bivens has been named vice president of SPP’s Market Monitoring Unit, replacing her predecessor after he took an executive position with the Texas grid operator. 

SPP said it selected Bivens after a national search, saying her “extensive” experience as a market monitor and 14 years in leadership positions at ERCOT “set her apart among many highly qualified applicants.” Her tenure begins Dec. 2. 

Bivens replaces Keith Collins, who left the MMU in May to take a position as ERCOT’s vice president of commercial operations. (See SPP Monitor Collins Joins ERCOT as VP of Market Ops.) 

“I’m thrilled with the opportunity to work for such a great organization in such a meaningful role,” Bivens told RTO Insider. “I look forward to building upon the solid foundation that Keith has laid at the MMU. With Keith, ERCOT is in good hands, and I now have big shoes to fill at SPP.” 

Director Ray Hepper — chair of SPP’s Oversight Committee, which ensures the MMU’s independence — said the organization is “incredibly excited” about Bivens’ arrival. 

“Her experience speaks for itself,” Hepper said in a statement. “She has detailed knowledge of electricity markets, especially as they impact RTOs. She’s carved a progressive career path, demonstrating leadership skills throughout. The SPP MMU will continue to provide an invaluable service to the region and grow under her guidance.” 

Bivens previously served as the ERCOT IMM for more than three years before resigning in 2023. Among her last actions was defending an IMM report that said the grid operator’s newest ancillary service “likely” raised the real-time market’s energy value by at least $8 billion. (See Bivens Resigns as ERCOT’s Market Monitor.) 

After leaving the IMM, Bivens joined NextEra Energy Resources as its executive director for regulatory and political affairs. She was responsible for oversight of policy and advocacy in ERCOT and at the Texas Public Utility Commission. 

Bivens has a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Houston. 

Posted on

SE Renewable Energy Conference: Will the Southeast Rise Again?

CHARLOTTE, N.C. ― The Southeast’s traditionally risk-averse vertically integrated utilities are now embracing the clean energy transition, driven by economic development in the form of new industry and data centers.

Their regulatory and legislative policies vary, but the states are united in their focus on meeting new corporate demand for clean electrons with “all of the above” mixes of power, in which new renewables are backed up with natural gas and nuclear.

Mississippi, for example, now boasts the tallest onshore wind turbines in the U.S.: AES’ 184.5-MW Delta wind project, with blades that reach 692 feet at their highest point, Jaxon Tolbert, senior program associate for the Southeastern Wind Coalition, said at the Infocast Southeast Renewable Energy conference in October.

A long-running narrative has maintained that the Southeast does not have enough wind for onshore development, but Tolbert said, “It just depends on how tall your turbine is, and so we’re really excited to see this new commercially available tall-wind technology …

“MISO-based wind is here, and MISO South is a new market, and I think the big issue is awareness.”

MISO’s interconnection queue now includes about 20 onshore wind projects located across Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky, he said.

Under North Carolina’s new carbon plan, which the state’s Utilities Commission approved Nov. 1, Duke Energy will procure up to 3,460 MW of new solar generation and 1,100 MW of battery storage, including 475 MW of standalone storage and 625 MW paired with solar, all by 2031.

However, the new solar will be counterbalanced by 3,620 MW of new natural gas turbines that the commission approved to go online in 2030 and 2031. (See NCUC Approves Latest Duke ‘Carbon Plan’ to Expand Renewable, Nuclear and Gas Generation.)

The Louisiana Energy Users Group, an industry group with heavy participation from fossil fuel companies, has floated a proposal to allow companies locating new facilities in the state to procure their own electricity from combined heat and power plants or from MISO’s wholesale market, at their own expense.

Whether a state participates in an organized wholesale power market could be a critical differentiator for renewable project developers and their corporate customers, said David Mindham, director of regulatory and market affairs for EDP Renewables.

Organized markets have “all the structures you need to power and contract for power outside of a regulated utility,” Mindham said. “And so that drives a massive amount of demand that isn’t seen in the rest of the South, and that demand can be data center load; it can be other manufacturers.”

At the same time, he sees the Southeast’s response to economic development and the resulting growth in power demand as “driving good and intelligent development of projects and renewables” across its investor-owned, municipal and cooperative utilities.

But interconnection remains a pain point for renewable developers in MISO South, reflecting uncertainty, rather than speculation, Mindham said.

“The queue today is a reflection of the uncertainty we have in the markets we’re approaching right now … where the transmission, where the number of data centers or new industrial loads, or whatever, where they are going to site, how many they are going to be,” he said. “We’re trying to anticipate the needs of a system that is full of uncertainties 10 years out.”

The Virginia Update

The growth of renewables across the South over the past four years has been significant, with many states doubling their megawatts of utility-scale solar.

According to figures from the Solar Energy Industries Association, cited at the conference, demand from the high concentration of data centers in Virginia’s Loudoun County has more than doubled solar in the state, from 2,629 MW in 2020 to 5,799 MW in 2024. Georgia has gone from 3,249 MW to 6,147 MW, and Alabama has grown its utility-scale solar from 283 MW to 823 MW.

But demand growth projections are also increasing exponentially. With data centers still crowding into Virginia, Dominion Energy has predicted its electricity demand will grow 5.5% per year for the next decade, ultimately doubling by 2039.

Speaking at the conference’s opening panel, focusing on Virginia, Scott Gaskill, Dominion vice president of regulatory affairs, said it took the utility “about 100 years to get to 20,000 MW [of demand], and we’re going to double that in about 15 years.”

The Virginia Clean Economy Act of 2020 requires Dominion to provide its customers with 100% clean power by 2045, setting up a major challenge for state lawmakers, regulators and other industry groups on how to meet growing demand and maintain reliability and affordability while meeting the VCEA goals.

Session moderator Cliona Mary Robb, board chair of the Virginia Renewable Energy Alliance, ran down a series of reports and hearings that will be looking at the thorny issues surrounding data center growth in the state.

The General Assembly in 2023 mandated the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to study the particular challenges raised by data centers and issue a report by Dec. 10. The state Commission on Electric Utility Regulation has also been holding a series of hearings on data centers, with the next one scheduled for Nov. 26.

One of the ideas being discussed by commission staff is a shift “from having utilities file an integrated resource plan to instead filing an integrated system plan,” Robb said. “The integrated system plan would include transmission planning as well as generation resource planning, and specifically … it would address the use of grid-enhancing technologies.”

Finally, the State Corporation Commission has announced it will hold a technical conference Dec. 16, looking at the impact of hyperscale data centers in the state, with a main focus on cost allocation.

The SCC has yet to accept Dominion’s 2024 IRP, filed Oct. 15, telling the utility to come back by Nov. 15 with updated modeling “to address load growth with and without data centers’ price impacts [and] reflecting … updated capacity forecasts coming out of PJM,” Robb said. (See Dominion Releases ‘All of the Above’ Integrated Resource Plan for 2024.)

Gaskill noted that the VCEA does allow the SCC to delay the retirement of fossil fuel generation to ensure reliability on the system.

But Kim Jemaine, managing director of Counterspark, a clean energy advocacy group, countered that while demand growth is largely seen as inevitable, meeting the clean energy goals of the VCEA is now being talked about as optional, as opposed to finding clean energy options.

“In our view, meeting the VCEA should be treated with the same seriousness and vigor as demand growth,” she said.

Posted on

NERC Submits IBR Standards to FERC

NERC has filed five proposed reliability standards with FERC, completing an occasionally eventful development process and taking the final step toward satisfying the commission’s mandate to develop reliability requirements for inverter-based resources. 

The standards submitted Nov. 4 address the second milestone in FERC Order 901, issued Oct. 19, 2023. According to NERC’s IBR work plan developed this year, Milestone 2 standards cover performance requirements and post-event performance validation for registered IBRs and were to be submitted by Nov. 4, 2024. Standards covering data-sharing and model validation for all IBRs are due by 2025, and planning and operational studies requirements for all IBRs are due by 2026. (See NERC Submits IBR Work Plan to FERC.) 

The following standards, and their implementation plans, were part of the Milestone 2 filing: 

    • PRC-024-4 — Frequency and voltage protection settings for synchronous generators, Type 1 and Type 2 wind resources, and synchronous condensers.  
    • PRC-028-1 — Disturbance monitoring and reporting requirements for inverter-based resources.  
    • PRC-002-5 — Disturbance monitoring and reporting requirements.  
    • PRC-030-1 — Unexpected inverter-based resource event mitigation. 
    • PRC-029-1 — Frequency and voltage ride-through requirements for IBRs. 

NERC also submitted a new definition of the term “inverter-based resource” for inclusion in the ERO’s Glossary of Terms. 

In the implementation plans for the standards, NERC requested that FERC set the effective date for PRC-024-4, PRC-030-1, and PRC-029-1 as the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the effective date of the commission’s approval order. Because PRC-029-1 is a prerequisite for PRC-030-1, the ERO suggested an alternative effective date could be the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the effective date of the commission’s approval order for PRC-029-1. 

For PRC-002-5 and PRC-028-1, NERC proposed the standards become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter after the effective date of FERC’s approval order. The ERO said a “relatively short implementation period is necessary to establish … PRC-028-1 as the standard governing disturbance monitoring requirements for IBRs.” 

All of the draft standards were approved by NERC’s Board of Trustees at a special meeting Oct. 8, held after PRC-029-1 received industry approval in a ballot that ended Oct. 4. The standard was the last of the five to pass its formal ballot, and the standards drafting team’s inability to get PRC-029-1 across the finish line led the board in August to invoke for the first time its authority to streamline the ERO’s stakeholder approval process. 

Following the board’s August decision, NERC’s Standards Committee held a technical conference in September to hear feedback from industry, which the drafting team then used to revise the standard. It was this revision that finally passed the industry ballot in October. 

After the board voted to submit the five standards to FERC, NERC Vice President of Engineering and Standards Soo Jin Kim told trustees the technical conference turned out to be a big help identifying issues that had held industry back from supporting PRC-029-1. She suggested that when developing the Milestone 3 standards for next year, NERC will call for similar gatherings to “get ahead of … the technical issues” so the drafting teams can handle them proactively. 

Posted on

Eversource Exit from OSW Drives Q3 Loss

Eversource Energy’s exit from the offshore wind business drove a $118 million loss in the third quarter of 2024, offsetting increased revenue from its electric and gas distribution business relative to 2023, the company announced to investors Nov. 5.

The company had been working to sell its 50% share in the South Fork and Revolution Wind projects since 2022 and finalized its sale of the projects to Global Infrastructure Partners at the end of September. But that came at a $524 million net loss, executives said. (See Eversource Takes Another Financial Hit with OSW Exit.)

CFO John Moreira said the loss includes “approximately $365 million related to obligations under the sale terms with GIP,” encompassing “costs associated with the previously announced delay to the in-service date and higher projected construction costs with Revolution Wind.”

CEO Joe Nolan emphasized that the company is pivoting to being a “pure-play, regulated pipes and wires utility” and preached caution for the company moving forward.

“We are not going to swing for the fences anymore; we’re looking for the singles and the doubles in the regulated space,” Nolan said. “I don’t want anyone to worry that we are going to go and propose a transmission line to Canada as a merchant project.

“We are a leader in the clean energy transition, with tremendous regulated opportunities ahead of us,” he added. “As the largest utility in New England, Eversource is well positioned to meet our states’ mandated clean energy goals.”

Nolan emphasized the opportunities the company expects to see for distribution investments, along with transmission investments to interconnect new generation projects. He specifically praised Massachusetts’ electric sector modernization plan (ESMP) process, in which utilities must submit five- and 10-year plans to meet the needs of the clean energy transition. (See Mass. DPU Approves 1st Round of Utility Grid Modernization Plans.)

The stakeholder engagement process for the ESMPs, which included significant discussions before the utilities filed the final plans, enabled Eversource to submit its plan with the support of key stakeholders, Nolan said.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities’ approval of the final plans received a more mixed reaction from climate and consumer advocates, with several groups arguing the plans should take a more systemwide approach.

Nolan said Eversource’s plan will enable the company to make an incremental $600 million in distribution investments and increase electrification capacity by more than 180%.

“This plan is the roadmap for clean energy in the state, and we believe it can become the model blueprint for the nation,” Nolan added.

Investors asked Nolan for his perspective on a potential deal in which Massachusetts or other New England states would purchase power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, currently propped up by a contract with Connecticut.

Massachusetts officials have expressed their hope that Connecticut will join the recent multistate OSW procurement, as the state’s participation may be needed for the viability of the proposed 1,200-MW Vineyard Wind 2 project, from which Massachusetts has committed to buying up to 800 MW. (See Multistate Offshore Wind Solicitation Lands 2,878 MW for Mass., RI.)

Nolan said he has been “involved only to the extent that I understand their objectives. … I have only been privy to the fact that everybody is trying to bring something to the table.

“There’s a very strong working relationship between Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts when it comes to clean energy,” Nolan added. “I am confident that they will come to a decision or a solution that is beneficial to all customers in New England.”

Eversource officials continued to express concern about Connecticut’s regulatory environment. Utility executives have repeatedly expressed concern about cost recovery in the state under the leadership of Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Chair Marissa Gillett.

The state’s electric utilities have particularly taken issue with PURA’s approach to implementing performance-based regulation. (See The Rocky Road to Performance-based Regulation in Connecticut.) In May, Eversource announced its plans to remove about $500 million in investments from the state. (See Eversource Announces $500M Cut in Connecticut Investments.)

Nolan told investors that he would reinvest the money in the state if “they decide they want to provide timely cost recovery and follow legal standards.” But he added that “there’s no shortage of opportunities for investment that give us timely recovery of our costs” in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

He also expressed some concern about capital recovery in PURA’s proposal for deploying advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) in the state. “We are hopeful that the final decision will provide a clearer path to allow us to make this important investment for our customers.”

Posted on

RFF Report Evaluates Biden Effort to Help Coal Communities

As Joe Biden’s presidency nears its end, Resources for the Future (RFF) reflected on the work of the federal Interagency Working Group on Energy Communities in a report released Nov. 5, examining how the lightly funded entity worked and where it fell short. 

The IWG was established one week after Biden took office in 2021 with Executive Order 14008. It was meant to organize the federal government’s response when communities lose out on the economic activity from a retiring power plant or other fossil fuel business. Organized by the Department of Energy, it also included the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, and Domestic Policy Council; the departments of Treasury, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Education; EPA; and the Appalachian Regional Commission. 

The White House had two main motivations for establishing the committee: showing its commitment to communities and workers that have historically powered the U.S. economy, and identifying the challenges and supporting the goals of coal-dependent communities around the country. 

“Establishing the IWG in the first week of the administration … indicated a commitment to addressing the specific challenges faced by fossil energy communities and workers in the broader context of concern for places ‘left behind’ economically,” the report says. 

Federal programs often face similar issues, but they have not developed a unified strategy to address many of them, often working in silos, according to the report. The IWG was meant to help coordinate the delivery of resources and expertise to coal communities. 

The IWG used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to identify areas that were highly dependent on coal, oil and natural gas for local employment (with most of its focus on coal communities). The identified areas included broad regions such as the Southwest, Gulf Coast, Intermountain West, Appalachia and Alaska. 

The group’s work focused on engaging energy communities, identifying federal investments to support job creation and economic diversification, integrating such programs across the federal government so communities could have a one-stop shop to access them, and identifying policy reforms and initiatives that would support their economies. 

It also set up rapid response teams for Wyoming, the Four Corners region, the Illinois Basin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky, with more under development. 

“Each RRT has a coordinator from one of the IWG’s member agencies,” the report says. “RRTs meet regularly with staff from state agencies and governors’ offices and local leaders to tackle the challenges they identify. This model provides an opportunity for information to be shared across, as well as up and down, levels of government.” 

The teams allow locals to become familiar with federal agencies and what they can offer, while federal staff benefits from increased understanding of local needs. 

The IWG also focused on identifying federal funding set aside or prioritized through legislation, such as the $300 million from the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration dedicated to coal communities, $4 billion in tax credits for clean energy manufacturing, and bonus tax credits for clean energy projects. 

One of the challenges identified in the effort is that federal programs are not nimble enough to meet the needs in each unique community. 

“Economic reinvention is not simply a matter of identifying a new industry or new technology and inserting it into the vacuum created by the declining or departed legacy economy,” the report says. Building a new renewable energy facility, which is almost always made of components manufactured elsewhere, does little to replace lost jobs from a shuttered coal plant or mine. “Early on, IWG leadership recognized that it would be most effective when it could connect communities to tailored solutions, rather than tailor the community’s needs to a federal program.” 

Communities benefit more from help when they have identified a plausible economic future, but many of them lack the capacity to create such visions of their future. 

“These are the communities that need the most support: time-intensive tailored assistance, capacity building and nurturing,” the report says. “For example, local elected officials may need help identifying which programs are best suited for upgrading, expanding or maintaining water and sewer infrastructure, in part because different types of projects may be funded by different programs across multiple agencies.” 

That retail-scale technical assistance can stretch the IWG’s budget, but it can also provide spillover benefits to implementing federal programs in other communities. 

“Facilitating regular and direct engagement between different levels of government builds relationships and trust among community members, local leaders, federal staff and others, improving the likelihood of successful federal intervention,” the report says. “And although challenges for accessing federal funding remain in many instances, helping communities apply for federal programs has given the IWG insights into how access can be improved.”