As Policies in Washington Change, Grid Investment Still Needed

WASHINGTON — Even as President Donald Trump and the new Republican-controlled Congress begin to roll back the clean energy policies of the Biden administration, the grid still needs to expand to meet new demand and become more resilient to extreme weather, state regulators heard last week.

Democrats tried to pass numerous transmission “permitting reform” bills last Congress to help realize the clean power investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, and that has impacted the partisan split on the subject. But now that demand is growing at a pace not seen in decades from data centers, the need to expand the grid goes beyond connecting renewable resources that are far from cities.

“We’re trying to solicit as many comments as we possibly can so that we can get this right, because it’s going to be threading a needle between the Republicans and the Democrats,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Winter Policy Summit. “There’s certain things that I might want that I’m going to fight hard for. There’s certain things, particularly on the transmission side, that the Democrats want. We’re going to try to marry those up and make an effective and long-lasting permitting.”

“There’s a lot of voices making that connection: that companies are looking for electrons,” Clean Energy Buyers Association Senior Director Bryn Baker told reporters Feb. 26 in a webinar on the state of transmission policy under the Trump administration and the new Congress. “And that there are economic advantages to those states and regions that are proactively planning for transmission, and that’s fundamental to getting those industries sited and built here.”

Serving the new loads from data centers, which are being built out by some of CEBA’s members, will require all kinds of investment in transmission, from interregional lines to reinforcing the existing system with grid-enhancing technologies and advanced conductors.

“I think transmission is kind of under that umbrella of energy infrastructure,” Americans for a Clean Energy Grid Executive Director Christina Hayes said on the webinar. “We’ve heard a lot more clarity under Secretaries [Doug] Burgum and [Chris] Wright [head of the departments of the Interior and Energy, respectively] talking about the importance of the backbone of the grid.”

Four years ago, predictions for demand growth were flat in most of the country, and AI was more of a vague concept for science fiction novels than it was a reality both on app stores and in the physical world, she said.

“The growth of data centers and artificial intelligence is driving up energy demand in ways we have not seen in decades, making transmission reform even more critical,” Hayes said. “Despite significant discussion about energy policy, we still need more definitive action, especially if we want to meet our projected energy demands.”

Even without hyper-scalers driving demand to new levels, the power system needs to be adequately maintained, and Exelon CEO Calvin Butler said that requires some spending. He recalled that before his company bought Pepco, the utility was running about a 6.4% return on equity and was in the fourth quartile for reliability.

“The utility wasn’t meeting its obligation to provide strong customer service and strong reliability,” Butler told NARUC during a panel on capital markets Feb. 25. “What we have recognized as a company [is that] operations and high customer satisfaction are foundational elements. We have to do that well before we can come to you and talk about our long-term strategy.”

By 2021, Exelon had gotten Pepco’s ROE up to 9.4% and its reliability improved by 50%, which involved investing in the underlying infrastructure needed for reliable and resilient service, Butler said.

In a panel Feb. 24 at NARUC on mutual assistance during extreme weather events, Southern Co. CEO Chris Womack said his firm was ready to meet demand from new sources thanks to the amount of investments it has made in its system, including new generation.

“With the careful oversight of our state regulators, elected officials, customers and shareholders, we have designed and engineered a remarkably flexible, resilient and affordable system,” Womack said. “We recently added new nuclear generation and now can dispatch in the largest nuclear station in America at Plant Vogtle.”

The Trump administration’s goal is for “energy dominance,” which Womack said translates to energy abundance that is important to meeting the new loads coming online in Southern Co.’s utility territories.

“Both energy dominance and energy abundance require a safe and secure energy grid, and thankfully, our nation’s power grid is up to that challenge,” Womack said. “It is advanced; it’s flexible and is integrated in a way that allows us to rely on each other day to day.”

Wildfires are becoming more common in Oregon, Portland General Electric CEO Maria Pope said. Devastating fires in California last decade caused its northern neighbor to start considering how the events could impact its utilities back when they were rarer, which proved prescient as Oregon saw more acres burn than any other state or Canadian province in 2024.

Now wildfires are so common, Pope argued that regulators need to insulate utilities from potentially devastating litigation as long as they can prove they followed a set of best practices, which would be similar to legal defenses against medical malpractice.

“Until we have something like that across this country, we’re going to continue to have economic hardship on the utilities,” Pope said. “Wildfire is an example. Like all the storms we’re talking about here, disasters are society-wide problems, and they need a society-wide solution, not just the backstop of a utility and the devastation that that brings the utility’s balance sheet.”

ERCOT TAC Opens Discussion on Proposed RTC Changes

AUSTIN, Texas — ERCOT staff and the Technical Advisory Committee’s leadership teed up for discussion Feb. 27 a pair of protocol revision requests related to the grid operator’s real-time co-optimization (RTC) and battery project, set to go live in December.

That gave TAC’s members an early opportunity to dive into the two proposed changes (NPRR1268 and NPRR1269) and lay out their concerns before the cadence of meetings quickens and they are brought for approval before the ERCOT Board of Directors in April. Staff hope to resolve those concerns, clearing the way for market trials and implementation.

“We really only have one shot at these in March,” said TAC Chair Caitlin Smith, with Jupiter Power, alluding to the committee’s only remaining meeting before the board gathers.

“Now is the time to engage as needed,” ERCOT’s Matt Mereness, chair of the Real-time Co-optimization plus Batteries Task Force, told TAC. “This is why we wanted to get it on the table. We didn’t want this to happen next month, when we’re under the gun.”

Two key upcoming meetings are those of Mereness’ task force (March 5) and TAC’s Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS) (March 12). The PRS is responsible for reviewing and recommending action on formally submitted NPRRs.

TAC would then consider the likely revisions to the proposed changes and any new NPRRs during its March 26 meeting. The board will meet April 7-8, with RTC market trials set to begin in May.

“That’s a pretty tight timeline,” Smith said. “There’s not really time for an extra TAC [meeting] between [March 26] and the board” meeting.

Much of the discussion centered on NPRR1269, staff’s effort to codify policy changes that were deferred from the original RTC-related protocols developed in 2020: parameters for ancillary service proxy offers floors; scaling factor values for ramping; and AS demand curves (ASDCs) for use in reliability unit commitment (RUC) studies.

ERCOT’s Independent Market Monitor filed comments saying proxy offers should be set at fixed values corresponding to the variable cost to provide the service. It said setting ASDC at 95% of the AS plan for a given product — as ERCOT plans to do — “results in proxy prices that are excessively high at times and could lead to reliability and market performance issues.”

The IMM also said capping AS’ proxy price at $2,000 is arbitrary and “excessively high relative to the cost to provide the service.”

Andrew Reimers, the IMM’s deputy administrator, said he has brought the Monitor’s concerns over the RUC offer floor to several stakeholder meetings.

“We were really hoping that this wasn’t implemented with an eye towards making sure that RUC always procured the whole AS plan; that there are going to be plenty of circumstances where we’re knowingly going short on the AS plan and printing non-zero prices for non-spin or ECRS [ERCOT contingency reserve service],” Reimers said. “We’re accepting the point that RUC is a different kind of tool than the real-time market or the day-ahead market [DAM] and already has kind of different penalty functions in it.

“Now that this is swinging back around to, ‘OK, well, if you’re going to do that in RUC, then you should also have the same offer floor in DAM,’ that’s a real problem for us and might be a deal breaker.”

Mereness said the task force’s consensus is that AS proxy offers distort the market and should be rare exceptions and quickly corrected. The PRS plans to request urgent status for NPRR1269 in March to keep the change on track for regulatory approval ahead of the RTC+B market trials. While the trials begin in May, ERCOT is opening the sandbox for system testing before then.

The IMM is behind NPRR1268, which defines a methodology for disaggregating the operating reserve demand curve (ORDC) and creates “blended” ASDCs.

“We had cliffs on the curves. Now, we have ramps in the curves,” Mereness said.

Texas Competitive Power Advocates, a trade association of competitive generators, filed comments supporting ERCOT’s suggestion to add an ASDC floor in RUC that ensures security-constrained economic dispatch (SCED) can procure its AS requirements. The association said that under this construct, market prices will incent the market to self-commit the capacity to meet the AS requirements, rather than have RUC commit them.

Michele Richmond, TCPA’s executive director, called in to the meeting to clarify that the association’s comments were not intended to set a price floor.

“The [Texas Public Utility Commission] has made it clear through their direction that they want to avoid [operations] watches. They want to consider the conservative operations that ERCOT has been doing,” she said. “We want to make sure that whatever amount of ancillary services ERCOT needs to procure in that endeavor are done through the competitive market, through market solutions, and not through out-of-market actions.”

After meeting twice on NPRR1268, the RTC+B Task Force is leaning toward a separate revision request with a broader scope for the aggregated ORDC and ASDC issues, Mereness said. He said a broader consensus exists with NPRR1270, with stakeholders wanting to remove its original qualification expansion to automatically include all SCED resources for the ECRS and non-spin AS products.

The RTC process dispatches energy and ancillary services interchangeably in the real-time market. ERCOT procures AS in the day-ahead market and says it does not typically move the products between resources in real time. The grid operator expects to save $1.6 billion annually in reduced energy costs.

The grid operator has been working on RTC since 2017, when the PUC directed it and the IMM to assess the process’s benefits. Work was delayed for several months after the disastrous February 2021 winter storm, known as Winter Storm Uri, that brought the ERCOT grid within minutes of collapsing.

ADER Discussion Moved to WMS

Stakeholders agreed to park continued discussion of an aggregated distributed energy resources (ADER) pilot project to the Wholesale Market Subcommittee.

The hope is that the WMS will be able to resolve issues around direct participation of third-party aggregators in the pilot and flexibility on limits, as well as consumer protection concerns and implications for load-serving entities.

Matt Mereness, ERCOT | © RTO Insider LLC 

The ADER pilot project is in its second phase and eyeing a third. The PUC voted Feb. 13 to move the project into ERCOT’s stakeholder process to determine the best way to move the initiative forward. (See “ADER Project Moved to ERCOT,” 2 Companies Withdraw Texas Energy Fund Projects from Consideration.)

The pilot began in July 2022 and has resulted in three virtual power plants participating in the wholesale energy market and providing certain AS. Eight additional ADERs have been approved and are in various stages of registration. Their total capacity, qualified and potential, is 25.7 MW of energy, 11 MW of non-spin reserve service and 8.8 MW of ECRS.

Staff have been working with the ADER Task Force to develop a governing document for Phase 3 and gain board approval in April. Potential changes include a new participation model that would allow ADERs to provide AS as non-controllable load resources (NCLRs) not economically dispatched in real time, and all third-party aggregators as NCLRs when aggregation is larger than 100 kW.

The ADER pilot was originally given a three-year time frame.

Amended NPRR Passes

TAC endorsed a proposed protocol change (NPRR1190) that would allow recovery of a “demonstrable financial loss” arising from a manual high dispatch limit override reducing real power output when the output is intended to meet qualified scheduling entities’ load obligations.

The measure was amended to include ERCOT comments received Feb. 27. Staff pushed to lower the $10 million threshold to trigger a review proposed by Reliant Energy to $3.5 million, saying the larger threshold, based on historical payment amounts that included Uri, was not appropriate given recent market pricing changes.

Reliant’s Bill Barnes said he acknowledged the $10 million threshold was too high and agreed to the reduced amount.

Committee members tabled the NPRR in October 2024 after it was also tabled by the board and remanded back to TAC over concerns of a more equitable and fair treatment of all parties.

The measure passed 26-4, with four members of the consumer group casting no votes.

TAC also endorsed a slim consent agenda that included its 2025 goals and strategic objectives, a proposed protocol change and a revision to the Verifiable Cost Manual (VCMRR) that would, if approved by the board:

    • NPRR1241: clarify the hourly standby fee claw backs for firm fuel supply service during a winter weather watch by using a sliding scale approach.
    • VCMRR042: add seasonal sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide prices obtained from indices to calculate emission costs from May through September; annual prices would continue to be used from October through April.

Will Trump Reorder Interconnection Queues for Natural Gas?

WASHINGTON —Solar, wind and storage are critical for meeting growing U.S. energy demand because they are cheaper and faster to build than natural gas, and they represent 95% of the 2,600 GW sitting in RTO and ISO interconnection queues across the country, according to Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy.   

But the industry should not depend on the current queues, said Andrew Wheeler, who led EPA during President Donald Trump’s first term.  

“I am not convinced that the queue is going to remain the way it is right now,” Wheeler told an audience of clean energy industry leaders at the ACORE Policy Forum on Feb. 26. “I think there could be a reordering of projects based upon [system] needs and going back to the president’s executive order on the energy emergency.” 

In addition to Trump’s Day 1 executive order declaring a national energy emergency, Wheeler also pointed to the Feb. 18 EO putting independent federal agencies such as FERC under more direct executive control. “There’s going to be a little bit more political scrutiny, I believe, on energy projects going forward,” he said. 

Individual energy projects could be re-examined, and the need for and viability of each one justified, he said. “I think that’s going to be … the course for the next few years.” 

The potentially conflicting narratives of the industry and the Trump administration were a recurring theme at ACORE’s two-day event, which opened with Long’s comments and an on-stage discussion between Wheeler and Ernest Moniz, who led the U.S. Department of Energy during former President Barack Obama’s second term.  

The extent to which energy policy ― and the debate surrounding it — can be depoliticized remains a vital question as the Republican-led Congress begins to wrestle with the massive budget cuts that will be needed to extend Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  

ACORE CEO Ray Long | © RTO Insider LLC 

The House of Representatives’ budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 14) passed Feb. 25 would require $2 trillion in spending cuts, with the largest slice — $880 billion – coming from appropriations under the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  

Moniz expects that at least some of the clean energy tax credits and other incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act will be cut. But, he said, U.S. energy policy will remain market driven. 

“Where energy policy is going is determined by where the energy sector is going, and I think certainly one trend which will continue is electrification playing a more important role in the energy economy, [with] multiple sources, obviously, for that electricity,” Moniz said.  

“It’s a reality that most of the new capacity added has been renewables [and] second, natural gas,” he said. “I don’t see how that’s going to change in these next days.” 

Trump’s climate denial notwithstanding, climate change also will continue to propel the growth of clean energy, Moniz said. “We’re going to see increasing extreme weather. … There’s a strong association in the public’s mind between that and warming; so again, I see more continuation than disruption in how we go forward.” 

Consumers vs. Producers

Since the November election, one of the main messages coming out of clean energy trade groups like ACORE is that they want to work with the Trump administration.  

Like Trump, the clean energy industry wants permitting reform “that protects the environment while eliminating bureaucratic red tape,” Long said.  

Another common goal is reducing energy costs for consumers with “an all-of-the-above approach to diversify the energy mix,” he said. “Wind and solar produce the cheapest power right now. … Removing any one technology puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage.” 

Still another argument is that the wind, solar and storage projects in interconnection queues are the “low-hanging fruit” for meeting near-term demand growth from data centers and keeping the U.S. ahead of China in the race to develop artificial intelligence. 

Renewables are “the things that are going to get built between now and 2030,” Long said. “Other technologies, such as natural gas ― peakers, combined cycle — new and existing nuclear, won’t come online until after 2030.” 

But, again, Wheeler foresees disruption to such expectations. While noting that the first Trump administration did “nothing on the policy side … that disadvantaged renewable energy,” he predicted an acceleration in natural gas development.  

“The Trump administration is going to make sure that they have the permitting and leasing in place not just to access natural gas but also to build new natural gas plants,” he said. 

Just one example: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin may be exploring options for overturning the endangerment finding, the 2009 ruling that gives the agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, according to The Washington Post. 

Looking at the upcoming negotiations over budget cuts in the House and Senate, Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) pointed to another threat to clean energy. A key question in the energy policy debate is “should our energy policy exist to benefit consumers or producers?” Casten said during an on-stage conversation with Robin Millican, head of strategic initiatives and integration at Breakthrough Energy.  

trump

Robin Millican (left) of Breakthrough Energy talks with Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) at the ACORE Policy Forum on Feb. 26. | © RTO Insider LLC 

While the majority of IRA tax credits and incentives have gone to develop clean energy projects in Republican districts and states, the Republican leadership in the House leans heavily toward fossil fuel-producing states, he said. Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Steve Scalise, House majority leader, are from Louisiana, a state heavily invested in offshore oil and LNG. 

“The parts of the country that are primarily extractive [are] where Republican leadership is from,” he said. “What the White House is pushing is a producer-focused policy, and a push to cheaper energy is a competitive threat to them.” 

Casten also expressed concern about FERC’s independence, and Chair Mark Christie’s “politically astute” statements in the wake of Trump’s executive order on executive control of independent agencies. (See FERC’s Christie Says Existing Policies Can Align with Trump Order.) 

“We don’t know at this point whether Christie is going to defend [grid] reliability over political pressure,” he said. “I mean, can you imagine if FERC had to have interregional cost allocation conversations where they’re sitting there saying, ‘Well, the two senators on this side of the cost allocation equation are on these committees … and this one is up for election, and this one’s not.’ That’s a good way to have blackouts.” 

‘Fast as We Can’

So, current political rhetoric aside, can the clean energy industry find ways to work with Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress? 

Moniz says the way forward will require “much more coalition building,” especially for developing new technologies for clean, dispatchable power, such as small modular reactors or other advanced nuclear. 

Beyond the challenges of permitting the new technologies, Moniz said, scaling them will require “substantial demand aggregation. … Without it, we will not get the kind of investments in rebuilding the supply chain that we are going to need and building a workforce that we are going to need if we’re going to profit from learning and cost reduction over time.” 

Scaling that kind of demand aggregation will, in turn, require governors, state regulators, the federal government, hyperscalers and utilities to work together, he said. “But even that, I think, will not be enough. That has to be supplemented by some level, at least for a while … of federal and state risk sharing because right now investors, public utility commissions in the United States are going to be unwilling to take on the risk implicit” in such capital-intensive new technologies.  

“The question is, can we bring together the whole system, in terms of technology, policy [and] business models?” he said. Moniz is optimistic that innovative technology and business models “will continue to keep pace,” but sees policy and regulatory change still lagging.  

“That’s the place where, let’s say, school is out in terms of our ability to pull all that together,” he said. 

Moniz continues to believe bipartisan solutions will be the most durable and downplays the importance of the current Republican trifecta controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, which, he said, is not a new phenomenon. 

“This is the fourth change of president in a row where the new president has come in with a trifecta,” he said. Obama, the first Trump administration and Biden all started with their party in control of Congress.  

“I personally think that checks and balances work better, and apparently voters do as well, since the history of those trifectas was relatively short,” he said. 

“I am very supportive and eager to see the clean energy transition continuing, but I have to always remind our friends that we have to go as fast as we can, not as fast as we’d like, because, by definition, you can’t go faster than you can.” 

MISO Aims for 4 New Tx Planning Futures in 9 Months

MISO expects the revamp of its transmission planning futures will be done by November and will yield an extra scenario dedicated to slow-moving generation construction.

The RTO said load growth from data centers, AI computing and domestic manufacturing makes it clear its current trio of 20-year futures that form the basis of its long-term transmission planning is outdated. It also said it foresees the potential for hydrogen production demand in later years of the futures.

MISO used the three futures it’s now retiring to rationalize about $32 billion in transmission investment between its first and second long-range transmission plan (LRTP) portfolios. It plans to use its upcoming revised futures to chart a third LRTP portfolio for MISO Midwest. (See MISO Pauses Long-range Tx Planning in 2025 to go Back to the Futures.) MISO established its current futures in 2019 and last updated them in 2022.

“It’s critical to do this now because we’re at another inflection point,” MISO Senior Vice President of Planning Jennifer Curran said during Feb. 28 Futures Redesign Workshop, the first in a series with stakeholders to modernize the futures.

Curran said though MISO has warned several times about inflection points over the years, members’ estimated load growth makes the RTO’s latest take-notice just as legitimate.

Curran said load growth trajectories are outstripping what’s contemplated in the existing futures. She also said MISO plans to add a fourth future to contemplate what happens if generation additions remain sluggish, as they have in recent years, noting that MISO needs to understand “what happens if things don’t pick back up really soon.”

She said MISO hopes to emerge with a new set of futures within nine months, something she acknowledged would be an uphill battle.

“It’s of critical importance to get these updates as soon as we can,” she said.

Director of Economic and Policy Planning Christina Drake said MISO decided its members’ integrated resource planning, the footprint’s load growth, continuing decarbonization and generation retirements will be the “load-bearing walls” of the new set of futures.

MISO’s proposed four, 20-year futures include:

    • A “lower load growth” scenario, in which demand projections don’t materialize due to an economic slowdown, and some utilities and states’ emissions reductions announcements are unrealized.
    • A “stated policy” future, in which estimated trends like reindustrialization, data center growth and electrification hold steady while members expand generation and meet their current emissions goals.
    • A “higher load growth” future, in which supply needs inch beyond today’s forecasts driven by high-powered load.
    • A “supply shift” future, in which MISO said “supply frictions” limit the pace of generation additions and load growth has to be managed through existing generation and demand-side resources.

While the first three futures largely use the logic MISO employed in its existing futures (slow, medium and fast-paced options), Drake said MISO must work through the “finer details” of its new fourth future. MISO also anticipates retirement delays and more demand-side resources in addition to unfulfilled emissions reductions targets.

Across all futures, MISO will apply an age-based retirement assumption to generation if members haven’t specified a retirement date. That age-based date will arrive years sooner for coal and gas units in the more progressive “stated policy” and “higher load growth” futures.

This time around, MISO will transition to Energy Exemplar’s more sophisticated PLEXOS tool to model generation expansion. It’s retiring use of the Electric Power Research Institute’s Electric Generation Expansion Analysis System, which MISO said was hitting the limits of the variables it can simulate as the system becomes more complex.

Curran warned the work could feel “uncomfortable” for some stakeholders because change is difficult. She stressed MISO’s goal is to land on a range of possibilities and asked that stakeholders not get hung up on modeling precision.

“It can be hard to predict next year, much less 20 years out. I can’t say it enough that it’s the bounds that are important,” she said.

WPPI Energy’s Steve Leovy said it was disconcerting MISO seems to be abandoning accuracy to establish its bookends.

Kavita Maini, a consultant representing MISO industrial customers, agreed and asked MISO to “not trade speed for accuracy.”

WEC Energy Group’s Chris Plante said he was “fearful” MISO would use its search for general bookends to justify omitting sensitivities or robustness testing.

Curran said she expects there will be some variables that won’t meaningfully change MISO’s transmission expansion needs.

“I guarantee that there are going to be things that we assess as immaterial that stakeholders will disagree with,” she said. “I will caution that one person’s crazy is another person’s reasonable.”

MISO also will include energy adequacy assessments as part of its futures. Drake said MISO hopes its adequacy assessment will support its states — which hold resource-planning power — in making informed decisions.

Maini asked if MISO has considered that its members will relax some carbon-cutting endeavors in resource plans due to the Trump administration’s standpoints on clean energy. She also asked if MISO has analyzed how trends might change if the Inflation Reduction Act is axed.

Drake said the Inflation Reduction Act might not have as much bearing on planning as some might assume. She said MISO’s research to date has found that member plans would predominately set the futures’ course.

“It was basically not as impactful as what was coming through our member plans,” Drake said.

MISO plans to discuss other assumptions at upcoming workshops. It plans to hold another Futures Redesign Workshop with stakeholders March 19.

Multiple stakeholders urged MISO to allow them to record and transcribe the workshops so others at their organizations can keep up with futures development. The grid operator prohibits anyone from recording meetings, save for a few self-recorded workshops throughout the year. It has opted not to allow futures workshops in its archives.

NEPOOL Transmission Committee Briefs: Feb. 27, 2025

FERC Order 904 Compliance 

ISO-NE has revised its compliance proposal for FERC Order 904 to allow generators to be compensated for reactive power outside the standard power factor range, the RTO told stakeholders at the NEPOOL Transmission Committee meeting Feb. 27. 

Order 904 prohibits compensation for reactive power within the standard power factor range. ISO-NE sought to keep its existing system of reactive power compensation in response to FERC’s Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking prior to the final rule, but the commission rejected the RTO’s arguments (RM22-2). 

At a prior meeting of the TC in early February, the RTO proposed to end all compensation for reactive power, while several stakeholders argued for a more limited compliance plan strictly focused on removing compensation for the standard range. The RTO delayed the vote and ultimately accepted the suggestion. (See NEPOOL Markets Committee Briefs: Feb. 11, 2025.)

“The revised compliance proposal will eliminate VAR [volt ampere reactive] capacity cost credits to qualified reactive resources within the power factor range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging at continuous rated output but will now continue to compensate for reactive power provided outside this range,” said Kory Haag, principal operations analyst at ISO-NE. 

ISO-NE estimated that the total annual compensation for reactive power is about $16 million, with $3.4 million for reactive power outside the standard range. 

The TC voted to support the proposal, with no opposition and 55 abstentions. Multiple stakeholders expressed concern about the order itself, arguing that it undermines grid reliability. 

“We are frustrated by the underlying order but appreciate the steps ISO-NE [has] taken to comply with the order,” said Bruce Anderson, general counsel for the New England Power Generators Association. “We also appreciate that ISO-NE took the broadly shared NEPOOL feedback on its original proposal and made changes to that proposal that look to carry out FERC’s directives.” 

Economic Study Process Improvements

The TC also voted to support updates to ISO-NE’s Economic Study process, centered around requests for proposals to address the issues identified during the process. 

The updates “incorporate revisions to identifying system efficiency issues and needs by establishing a clear trigger for when to issue an RFP, defining benefit metrics for evaluating RFP responses and streamlining the RFP process into a single stage,” said Patrick Boughan, supervisor of economic studies and environmental outlook at ISO-NE. 

ISO-NE plans to run a System Efficiency Needs Scenario (SENS) every two or three years, looking at 10 years into the future. SENS tests would be used to identify potential transmission solutions. The RFP process will be triggered if ISO-NE’s modeling shows savings of at least $4.3 million from congestion relief. 

In feedback submitted prior to the meeting, RENEW Northeast criticized the proposal’s method of modeling imports, arguing that it “may be artificially reducing the quantity of imports in the model and as a result having the opposite effect of underestimating the benefits of congestion relief.” 

ISO-NE responded that its modeling approach “is consistent with practices in NYISO, PJM and MISO,” adding that valuing imports at the border locational marginal price “is the most logical way to value imports in the modeling context.” 

RENEW also argued that SENS test should include some projection of capacity market savings and asked the RTO to consider creating a process for smaller solutions that do not meet the $4.3 million savings threshold. 

ISO-NE said estimating capacity market savings would introduce a significant amount of uncertainty and added that the cost threshold was calculated based on the cost of projects on the Regional System Plan and asset condition lists. 

Feds Pause $1M Pathways Initiative Funding, Group Leader Says

The federal government has put on hold nearly $1 million in funding toward the development of a new independent Western “regional organization” (RO) to oversee CAISO’s Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) and Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM), the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative’s Launch Committee said Feb. 27.

The funding status is unknown because of a communication pause from the U.S. Department of Energy, according to a committee presentation.

“Given some of the cuts and uncertainty with the federal government, that funding is currently on hold,” Kathleen Staks, executive director of Western Freedom and the Launch Committee’s co-chair, said during the stakeholder meeting.

However, the Launch Committee does not expect the uncertainty of federal funding to slow down its work significantly. The current political environment has impacted some partners of the Pathways Initiative, “and we are sensitive to that. But directly for the work that we’re doing, we think we’re going to be able to continue to move forward,” Staks said.

Pathways received nearly $1 million from the DOE under former President Joe Biden’s administration in November to underwrite the committee’s efforts to establish an RO to oversee CAISO’s WEIM and EDAM.

The award was issued through the Pathways Initiative’s philanthropy adviser Global Impact, which the group’s Launch Committee partnered with earlier in 2024 to secure outside funding for its operations, which so far have been supported by donations — and volunteered staff — from its participants.

President Donald Trump’s administration on Jan. 27 paused all federal grants and loans, according to a memo issued by the White House’s Office and Management and Budget.

“With or without that DOE funding, the RO is going to need additional funding,” Staks noted.

Setting up an independent RO comes with several costs, including legal review of various documents, seating a board and ongoing facilitation costs, among other things, she said.

Staks said the committee hopes to have a draft budget to share with stakeholders by spring. She recognized that “all of our work thus far has been funded by a variety of stakeholders, and we are extremely grateful for that support and commitment.”

The Launch Committee’s success also hinges on the California bill to implement the Pathways “Step 2” plan to transform CAISO’s governance. Lawmakers introduced the bill in the state Legislature on Feb. 20. The proposed legislation sets conditions under which CAISO and California investor-owned utilities can participate in energy markets governed by an independent RO.

The Launch Committee is also working to finalize corporate documents, including registering as a nonprofit organization and refining the nominating committee process used to seat the RO board. The entire process to establish the RO will be marked by an extensive stakeholder process and negotiations between various parties, Staks noted.

The Pathways bill states that CAISO can join the RO-governed market on or after Jan. 1, 2027, which the Launch Committee believes “will not be too early,” according to Staks.

SouthCoast Wind to Take $278M Impairment as Delay Appears Likely

Another mature offshore wind project is facing financial write-downs and a potential yearslong delay in the wake of the Trump administration’s moves to shut the sector down. 

The partners behind SouthCoast Wind said they would take a $278 million impairment on their planned wind farm off the Massachusetts coast and place development on hold for as many as four years because of the uncertainty created by President Donald Trump’s Day 1 executive order targeting wind power. (See Critics Slam Trump’s Freeze on New OSW Leases.) 

SouthCoast is at a late stage of development compared with many of the other proposals in U.S. waters. On Dec. 20, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a Record of Decision in its favor. It was the 11th offshore wind project greenlit, all of them during the Biden administration, and it seems likely to be the last for years to come. 

BOEM subsequently approved SouthCoast’s construction and operations plan on Jan. 17 — the last business day before Trump was inaugurated and issued an executive order casting new uncertainty upon what once was a rapidly growing renewable energy sector. 

EDP Renewables and Engie are 50/50 partners in Ocean Winds, which is developing SouthCoast. They cited the U.S. market uncertainty Feb. 26 and 27, respectively, as they discussed the possible delay and resulting impairment with financial analysts. 

EDP CEO Miguel Stilwell d’Andrade said during an investor call that in the wake of the executive order, “We’ve decided to just be more prudent around the timing. … If we get a better scenario, then that would be great. We could have taken a two-year delay, but we took a four-year one.” 

“We feel that there’s probably going to be delay in development. [SouthCoast] is quite advanced. It’s a great project. So if we pause it, it’s OK; you know, let’s see what happens in four years,” Engie CEO Catherine MacGregor said. 

Ocean Winds North America CEO Michael Brown later said via email: “The impairment decision is a precautionary measure based on a scenario of potential delays in its projects. Ocean Winds strongly believes in the potential of offshore wind to generate significant economic activity and provide abundant, domestic energy to meet rapidly growing demand in the U.S. and remains confident in finding a path forward in coordination with all relevant authorities in the upcoming months.” 

This is the narrative adopted by the U.S. renewables industry after Election Day: The country needs the electricity and the economic benefits of renewable energy development. But there is no indication so far that the argument has swayed the president. 

SouthCoast in September was selected in an innovative joint solicitation by the three southern New England states to provide 1,087 MW to Massachusetts and 200 MW to Rhode Island. 

But nearly six months later, the parties are still negotiating power purchase agreements. The terms have not been disclosed, but they are likely to be expensive: D’Andrade hinted that EDP’s bid was higher than $150/MWh. 

Massachusetts officials were not able to provide an update at press time, and Rhode Island officials did not return a request for comment. 

This is the second go-round for SouthCoast Wind, which was selected in an earlier Massachusetts solicitation under the name Mayflower Wind. Like most other wind projects contracted off the Northeast coast, it could not proceed to construction amid the soaring costs and supply chain constraints of 2022/23 under terms of PPAs negotiated years earlier. After negotiations, SouthCoast canceled the original PPAs and rebid its project. 

The reset may prove costly, as U.S. leadership has since passed from an ardent wind power supporter to an adamant foe. 

Trump’s executive order immediately halts only future wind energy leasing, but it directs a review and potential revocation of existing lessees’ permits — an implied but dire threat to an industry that already was struggling before he was elected. 

Texas RE Hears About Reliability Benefits of New Nuclear Reactor Designs

A new generation of nuclear reactors has the potential to provide needed reliability services, speakers said at a webinar hosted by the Texas Reliability Entity on Feb. 27. 

However, they added, harnessing these technologies will require helping regulators, policymakers and consumers overcome longstanding concerns about nuclear power. 

Derek Haas, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin whose areas of research include advanced nuclear reactor design and licensing, joined Andrew Harmon, vice president of operations and business development at Natura Resources, for the regional entity’s regular Talk with Texas RE event. 

Haas observed that traditional nuclear reactors produced relatively large amounts of power but required a reliable electric supply from the grid to pump coolant even after shutdown. By contrast, newer reactor designs such as molten salt reactors, which produce energy at higher temperatures and higher efficiency but lower pressure, are built to “walk away safe” standards so they can shut down safely without melting down even if grid power is lost. 

The new designs can even support the grid in the case of an emergency, Haas said, noting that “you might have an on-site diesel generator, and with that, the reactors even provide an additional level of reliability where they could provide black start capability to the grid.”  

In addition, he observed that although “folks think of nuclear as not load-following … reactors can load follow, really, faster than coal, but not quite as fast as gas. It’s just that for such a capital-intensive project [as a traditional reactor], it doesn’t really make sense to load follow.” By contrast, he said, advanced reactors could be constructed at a smaller size and a lower cost to make them more responsive to load. 

Proponents of advanced reactors have attracted criticism for presenting an overly rosy picture of the state of the technology. For example, last year a nuclear energy expert from George Washington University argued that the presence of these reactors on power grids “is largely fictional,” and the reactors that have been built present significant risks of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. (See Report: Small Nuclear Reactors not the Answer.) 

However, Harmon, whose company is preparing to build the MSR-100 molten salt reactor at Texas A&M University, emphasized that such concerns have been considered and incorporated into the design of the new reactors. Natura touts the MSR-100 as the first molten salt reactor ever licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Harmon pointed out that the new reactors reduce or eliminate many of the dangers associated by the public with traditional reactor designs. 

“Molten salt reactors do not produce spent nuclear fuel, and so we have the ability to … achieve 20 times the amount of fuel utilization [of] traditional light water reactors,” Harmon said. “Basically, as long as gravity works, we’re able to drain our salt and our fuel into a drain tank below our reactor core … thus causing the fission process to stop, and keeping it under low-pressure operation. So there’s nothing that we have to actively do for that system to be able to walk away and safely shut down operations.” 

Both speakers acknowledged that nuclear proponents will need to overcome longstanding fears based on accidents like those at the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear plants. Haas observed that the U.S. nuclear industry also needs investment; the Nuclear Energy Institute’s 2023 Workforce Strategic Plan found that a significant portion of the nuclear workforce is approaching retirement age, particularly in the radiation protection field. 

Haas emphasized that while the cultural bias against nuclear power is understandable given their presentation in the media, “the risks are already extraordinarily low with existing [nuclear] technology,” and new designs will only increase that safety. 

“The reality about even [Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island is] the number of people harmed was still extraordinarily low for industrial accidents,” Haas said. “I would be perfectly happy to live near a nuclear reactor, and the last place I lived was just within sight of a nuclear power plant. So [I’m] not just saying that; I’ve done it before.” 

Legal Experts Chart Future of Agency Deference After Loper Bright

WASHINGTON — Before President Donald Trump’s executive orders started raising questions about the authority of FERC and other agencies, courts had already started to chip away at longstanding precedents such as the Chevron deference, experts said during a panel at NARUC’s Winter Policy Summit.

Chevron has been on the ropes for many, many years,” Jonathan Ellis, a partner with McGuireWoods, said during the Feb. 24 panel. “Justice [Antonin] Scalia was once an ardent supporter, and then toward the end of his career soured on the doctrine.” (See Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference to Administrative Agencies.)

Before Scalia started to change his tune on the precedent, Ellis clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, who Ellis said was never a big fan of the doctrine, in which courts usually deferred to decisions by regulatory agencies on issues of their expertise.

In many cases preceding Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the court had worked around Chevron, but the petition for certiorari in that case already asked the court to rule against it or find it did not apply, Ellis said.

“There will always be, I think, out of necessity, some role or deference to regulatory agencies and expertise that they represent,” he added.

Georgetown University law professor Howard Shelanski agreed that the tea leaves had not augured well for Chevron for quite some time, but noted the issues in the case went to the heart of the constitutionality of Congress delegating authority to agencies.

“For a long time, it was taken as a given by the court that concerns over delegation had been asked and answered,” Shelanski said. “And so long as there was some kind of articulable principle that limited the agency — even a very vague one, even a very general one — they had to allow that Congress had the authority to give the agency some scope for interpretation. And that led to the view, if a statute is silent on something, the agency should be able to step in.”

‘Ambiguous Phrasing’

Overruling Chevron means precedent has reverted back to the 1970s, when courts could second guess agency decisions on appeal as a matter of statutory interpretation, he said.

FERC Solicitor Robert Solomon said in his 30-year career he has probably cited the Chevron doctrine as much as any lawyer, but over the past 10 years the Supreme Court and lower courts have increasingly avoided using it.

“Courts have gone out of their way to find the absence of ambiguity and no need to defer formally under Chevron to the agency,” he added.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained what Solomon called “some of the most ambiguous phrasing” he could imagine around when FERC’s backstop transmission siting authority kicked in, but the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals still declined to follow Chevron in Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC and sided against the agency, effectively gutting that statute for a decade until Congress passed another law.

“In the Supreme Court demand response case, FERC v. EPSA — the greatest case ever decided, the majority found that the FERC’s authority to essentially regulate demand response, because it has a direct effect on wholesale prices, was clear and unambiguous,” Solomon said, making a joking reference to a case he argued.

But in a dissent in that case, Scalia argued the statute was “clear and unambiguous” against FERC because the agency “was effectively regulating retail sales within the ambit of state authorities,” Solomon said.

Even before Chevron was struck down, it had proved difficult to determine when courts would apply it, and now FERC’s legal team is getting around the issue by using the term “respect” rather than “deference,” he said, adding that he’s concerned by some of the language courts use when they invoke their authority under Article 3 of the Constitution to resolve all questions of law.

Regardless of court actions, Solomon said FERC still has a responsibility to make well-reasoned decisions based on the record before it. Loper Bright will have an impact on interpreting federal law and when it comes to issues where FERC’s authority clashes with that of states, the trend has been to let jurisdictions overlap, he said.

“From my perspective, the bigger concern right now isn’t whether Chevron deference or respect continues to live for our interpretation of federal statutes,” Solomon said. “… Rather, the current issue is whether we will continue to get Chevron-like deference, not when we are interpreting the federal statute, but rather when we are interpreting a federally approved tariff or a contract that similarly involves interpretation by Article 3 courts.”

Courts have expertise in interpreting the law, but FERC has continued to argue in court that it has special expertise when it comes to the rates and tariffs that make up the bulk of its work, Solomon contended. And the agency is waiting for a case that will determine whether the courts will defer to its expertise on jurisdictional contracts and tariffs, he added.

“In the eight months or so since [Loper Bright] was decided, the courts continue to go out of their way to explain whether or not the decision would have been any different if Chevron still applied,” Solomon said. “It’s actually been quite satisfactory to us. There have been a couple of recent decisions where the court has said not just simply that the agency’s interpretation was reasonable or permissible, but rather it was the best or the correct interpretation.”

Eversource Outlines Billions in New Boston-area Asset-condition Needs

Presenting to the ISO-NE Planning Advisory Committee on Feb. 26, Eversource Energy introduced a new set of asset-condition projects that could cost the region billions over multiple decades. 

The company is proposing the staged replacement of its aging network of underground high-pressure fluid-filled (HPFF) transmission lines in Eastern Massachusetts. The company’s HPFF lines are reaching the end of their expected lifespan, and leaks from the lines have become larger and more frequent as the lines have aged, Eversource’s Chris Soderman said. 

“Failures can lead to monthslong outages due to the difficulty of repairs,” he said, adding that the company is still working on the environmental cleanup for a leak that occurred Dec. 24, 2023. Most of the 6,000 gallons of dielectric fluid that leaked from the line during the incident flowed into the Charles River, he said. 

Eversource outlined its plans to gradually replace its HPFF lines with cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) technology, which it described as the “preferred technology for new underground transmission line construction.” 

Soderman said the supply chain for HPFF technology is fragile, and the only remaining HPFF manufacturing plant in the world has signaled its intent to exit the market in the long term. 

“If HPFF cable manufacturing were discontinued today, Eversource estimates that spare inventory would be sufficient to maintain existing HPFF lines during the conversion to XLPE — but not over the long term,” Soderman said. “The most responsible solution to ensure long-term reliability for customers and protection of the environment is to transition away from HPFF cables as the assets reach [their] end of usable life.” 

He said the company plans for roughly three to four phases of work to replace its HPFF network, which includes “approximately 179 miles of [pool transmission facility] HPFF circuits.” 

The company expects the replacements to continue into the 2040s, with the first phase aiming to construct about 35 miles of double-circuit underground ductbank, which will likely cost “somewhere between $1.5 [billion] and $2 billion,” Soderman said. He added that it is too early to make reliable cost projections for later phases of the replacements. 

In recent years, the New England states have raised alarm about the rapidly increasing costs of asset-condition projects in the region, prompting some changes to the process of reviewing the projects at the PAC. However, asset-condition projects are under FERC jurisdiction, and the states have limited power to regulate the projects. 

The asset-condition project forecast database published by the New England Transmission Owners — created at the request of the states in 2024 — outlines $5.8 billion in spending for projects expected to come online between 2024 and 2030. This includes only projects with full cost estimates, and the total cost will increase as additional projects move out of the conceptual stages. 

Beyond the cost estimate, Eversource did not provide an official cost estimate for the HPFF replacement program. Soderman said the first phase of replacements will be broken into 11 individual projects with in-service dates from 2028 to 2033. Eversource plans to provide cost estimates to the PAC in the summer, he said. 

Also at the PAC, Joe Dobiac of National Grid detailed a nearly $9 million cost increase for a transmission upgrade project in Massachusetts. He attributed the increase to permitting delays, which have pushed the expected in-service date from December 2025 to December 2026. 

Rafael Panos of National Grid presented a nearly $12 million asset-condition project in Eastern Massachusetts, driven by worn shieldwire assemblies, deteriorated insulation, damaged shieldwire and cracks in a river crossing tower foundation. 

Joshua Cefaratti of Avangrid provided an update on the final cost of a project to build a flood wall protecting a substation in Connecticut. The project was completed in August 2024 at a cost of $53.9 million, a significant increase over the initial estimate of $16.5 million in 2016. He attributed the price increase to permitting and construction delays and increased labor and materials costs.