Page 950 – RTO Insider

April 1, 2021

Southeast Utilities Defend SEEM Proposal

Sponsors of the Southeast Energy Exchange Market (SEEM) told FERC on Tuesday that the commission should approve the proposal as is, saying critics’ objections are flawed or irrelevant.

More than a dozen utilities and cooperatives, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Southern Co. and Duke Energy, proposed SEEM to reduce the “friction” in bilateral trading by introducing automation, eliminating transmission rate pancaking and allowing 15-minute energy transactions.

FERC SEEM Proposal — SEEM members said it would be impractical for FERC to mandate an RTO in the Southeast because much of the transmission grid needed for regional integration is controlled by non-jurisdictional entities like TVA. | *Southeast Energy Exchange Market*

In filings earlier in March, numerous intervenors told FERC the proposal doesn’t go far enough to increase competition and asked the commission to require more transparency, broader governance and increased consumer protections. Several also requested a technical conference to consider more ambitious market development. (See Opposition Emerges to Southeast Energy Exchange Market.)

In a joint filing Tuesday, SEEM’s sponsors reiterated their position that FERC could only determine whether their Federal Power Act Section 205 filings were just and reasonable, insisting the commission lacks authority to require substantive changes (ER21-1111, et al.). They have asked FERC to approve the proposal effective May 13.

They said the intervenors had not identified any flaws in the proposal and that 80% of the 67 pleadings submitted supported the proposal in whole or part. None of the six state regulatory commissions that intervened registered opposition, they said.

They said the opponents are improperly trying to broaden the scope of the proceeding to consider alternatives such as an RTO or energy imbalance market.

“The Southeast EEM proposal offers two small but significant enhancements to the existing bilateral market in the Southeast, without changing the fundamental nature of the existing market,” they said, referring to the addition of an algorithm for matching buyers and sellers and use of excess zero-cost transmission.

“Most regional transactions will still be conducted through existing bilateral market mechanisms that will not be impacted by the Southeast EEM proposal,” they wrote.

‘Fully Realized Proposal’

SEEM members said they were taking no position on a technical conference to consider a broad restructuring of the Southeast but said it should not occur in the dockets opened by the sponsors.

“It is worth reiterating here the delicate balance represented by the proposal before the commission, and that previous attempts to develop an RTO in the Southeast have not been successful,” they said. “The benefits of the fully realized proposal actually before the commission in this proceeding should not be delayed to pursue other aspirations.”

They also rejected arguments that approval of SEEM would prevent the eventual development of an RTO.

“Should lawmakers and stakeholders in the Southeast determine that some other structure or market design is appropriate, nothing about the Southeast EEM prevents such changes,” they said. “Indeed, should the commission approve the Southeast EEM and allow it to operate for some time, data from its operations may better inform discussion about future market evolution. However, the Southeast EEM must be allowed to move forward to enable such an evaluation.”

They rejected a call by public interest organizations (PIOs) to impose RTO-like requirements on SEEM members. “The Southeast EEM members have not voluntarily elected to join an RTO, nor have they sought the incentive [return on equity] reward for doing so. So, they have not opted in to RTO rules, and the PIOs have no basis for forcing them to do so.”

Mandating an RTO in the region would be impractical because much of the transmission grid needed for regional integration is controlled by non-jurisdictional entities like TVA, they said. “Half the expected net energy for load in the footprint is either non-jurisdictional, or not able to connect to the rest of the region without using non-jurisdictional transmission,” they said.

SEEM also dismissed market power concerns and disputed the PIOs’ contention that limited competition in the region had saddled consumers with high rates. They said the monthly bill data the groups cited were misleading because of the Southeast’s heavy air conditioning demand.

“When examined instead using the metric of average price in cents per kilowatt-hour — a metric that is not dependent on usage and instead is isolated to cost — the Southeast fares better than the national average, including most states with RTOs.”

One Concession

SEEM members offered one concession to intervenors who requested that meetings of the Membership Board be open to the public.

“The Southeast EEM members do not believe these measures to be necessary for the commission to find the Southeast EEM proposal just and reasonable but are amenable to those specific requests and commit to allow for public observation of board meetings, sometimes limited in attendance for confidentiality purposes, and to make meeting minutes public.”

April 1, 2021January 15, 2025

SERC Board of Directors/Members Briefs: March 31, 2021

SERC Reliability President and CEO Jason Blake praised the regional entity’s new organizational structure at its inaugural Members Meeting on Wednesday, held prior to the quarterly Board of Directors meeting.

“We feel very confident that this structure is going to serve us all very well, and it’s going to serve you all very well,” Blake said. “It’s going to definitely elevate our game, make sure that we are focused on policy and strategy at the board level and [ensure] that we are … very much tied in with your voice. And this meeting, as well as our other meetings, are the critical vehicle to make sure that you are engaged and have that voice.”

SERC CEO Jason Blake | SERC

The Members Meeting is a result of a set of amendments to SERC’s bylaws, approved by FERC Approves SERC’s Bylaw Changes.) Under the new structure, SERC’s members group includes representatives from each member company that meet at least once a year to advise the board on the business plan and budget, elect independent directors and approve bylaw changes as needed.

The amended bylaws took effect Jan. 1, making this the first board meeting under the new structure. However, board Chair Todd Hillman said that “the timing … actually is intentional,” because meeting in spring gives members the best opportunity to weigh in on the upcoming year’s issues.

The meeting was also the first for the organization’s independent directors, Shirley Bloomfield, Lonni Dieck and Deborah Wheeler. All three were appointed by SERC last October in accordance with the new bylaws, which require between three and five independent directors alongside 15 sector representatives. (See SERC Appoints 1st Independent Board Members.)

Appointments and Approvals

Actions taken at the Members Meeting included rounding out the board with the election of directors to fill two vacant seats in the Cooperatives sector. Roger Clark of Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. was chosen for a term ending June 30, 2022, while Greg Ford of Georgia System Operations was re-elected to serve a term ending June 30, 2023.

The group also approved minor amendments to the organization’s bylaws that would modify the terms of board officers, sector directors and independent directors to begin on June 1, along with establishing the chair as an ex officio, non-voting member of the board’s committees. The board has already confirmed the amendments by written consent; the agreement of the members means they will now be submitted to NERC’s Board of Trustees and then FERC for approval.

Todd Hillman, MISO | SERC

Additional appointments by the board include naming Clark to the Human Resources and Compensation Committee; Daniel Case of GridLiance and Glenn Dooley of Duke Energy Florida as chair and vice chair, respectively, of the Operating Committee; and John Greaves of Southern Co. and Carter Manucy of Florida Municipal Power Agency as chair and vice chair of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Committee, respectively.

The board also voted to accept revisions to SERC’s regional delegation agreement (RDA). FERC approved the document conditionally in January, along with RDAs for other REs, but requested that SERC update the agreement to ensure that RE boundaries are consistently described using text instead of maps. (See FERC Provisionally OKs ERO Delegation Agreements.)

Draft Business Plan and Budget OK’d

Finally, the board approved SERC’s draft 2022 business plan and budget. The draft will be submitted to NERC and posted for public comment, with final board approval planned in June and submission to FERC in August.

Reviewing the document at the meeting, SERC CFO and Corporate Treasurer George Krogstie noted that the Finance and Audit Committee is projecting the RE’s spending for 2022 will be $26.7 million, a 3.4% increase from 2021. The RE’s assessment for the year is planned at $24.8 million, up 5.5% from the previous year.

Personnel changes account for the largest share of the budget growth, with four full-time equivalent positions to be added in 2022; the new hires are expected to “drive a stronger and more robust internal [information technology] team.” Increases in pay and employee benefit costs are also expected to drive spending up.

Because the planned 2022 assessment is insufficient to cover the budget, SERC expects to release $1.7 million of its reserves, comprising $500,000 from the working capital reserve and $1.2 million from the assessment stabilization reserve. Krogstie compared this drawdown positively to the 2021 budget, which saw $2.1 million released from reserves.

He noted that the $1.6 million remaining in the working capital reserve will represent 6% of the budget, matching SERC’s target for the reserve. Nearly $2.2 million will remain in the asset stabilization reserves for future offsets, assuming no future penalties are assessed.

April 1, 2021

NERC Warns of Batteries’ Hidden Thermal Risk

Regulations governing the safety of battery energy storage systems (BESS) “have developed slower than the technology” and may not be sufficient to prevent damage on their own, according to a Lessons Learned report published by NERC on Monday.

The report concerns a fire and explosion that occurred in April 2019, at the McMicken BESS in Surprise, Ariz., managed by Arizona Public Service. Normally a NERC Lessons Learned would not include such identifying information, in the interest of privacy; however, in this case APS “wished to be known in order to expedite the dissemination of information” on the incident. The company has also made its full report on the event public on its website.

At the time of the fire, McMicken had been in service for more than two years. APS sourced the system from AES in June 2016, with AES agreeing to “design, engineer, procure, construct and commission” the facility. Later that year AES signed a long-term maintenance and services contract for the battery; it assigned the contract to Fluence Energy, a joint venture between AES and Siemens, in 2018.

All components of McMicken — except for interconnection equipment such as transformers, breakers and switch gear — were located inside a structure about the size of a standard shipping container. The facility contained 27 vertical racks, each holding 14 lithium-ion battery modules with 28 cells each, an 80-kW inverter, a node controller for data collection and communication, and a battery protection unit.

An additional rack held communications equipment for the system, and eight more racks were available for expanding or upgrading the facility, although at the time they were being used for storage.

Battery Fault Leads to Runaway Heating

On the day of the fire, McMicken was performing a solar-smoothing function. This means absorbing excess energy produced by rooftop solar panels on the circuit during the day and discharging during evening peak load. The subsequent timeline was reconstructed by investigators using electronic logs from the BESS and dispatch data from entities including APS, Fluence and first responders.

Shortly before 5 p.m. PST, while undergoing a charging cycle, an internal fault in a battery cell led to a sudden drop in voltage of about 0.24 V. Within minutes the cell went into thermal runaway, which cascaded into other cells in the module and then into other modules in the rack.

NERC Battery Risk — All of the modules in rack 15 of the McMicken BESS (left photo, and right photo center) were damaged by thermal runaway, but neighboring racks were mostly undamaged. | *APS*

The thermal runaway generated off-gassing and smoke from the batteries that triggered the facility’s fire suppression system, which discharged a Novec 1230 “clean agent” chemical manufactured by 3M. However, while this system worked as intended, the agent was designed to extinguish incipient fires and ineffective at stopping thermal runaway once underway.

As a result, the heat continued to build, as did the flammable gases in the container — which did not ignite, despite the high temperature, because the Novec 1230 displaced oxygen in the air. While the agent dissipated within 30 minutes, by that time there was not enough oxygen in the environment to start a fire. The gas buildup continued, with no ventilation because the shutdown of the facility’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system (also part of normal fire procedure).

Blast Followed Firefighters’ Entry

About a minute after the Novec 1230 discharged, APS contacted Fluence to verify that the fire-suppression system was engaged. Fluence then sent a field service engineer, with APS sending its own personnel about five minutes later. By 5:45 p.m. both APS and Fluence had called 911. Firefighters arrived shortly afterward.

At 8:02, emergency responders opened the front door of the container. APS’ report does not specify why they decided to enter the BESS at this time or what they had done between arriving and opening the door.

The explosion occurred almost immediately afterward, most likely because of the mixing of oxygen from outside with the flammable gases inside and then contacting a spark or residual heat from the battery module. Several firefighters were injured, and the BESS and its containing structure were “essentially destroyed”; photos by APS show buckling walls, doors blown off their hinges and damage to the HVAC systems.

Thermal Runaway not Addressed in Standards

APS’ investigators identified five main contributing factors to the incident.

The thermal runaway was triggered by an internal failure in a battery cell.
The thermal runaway was able to cascade because of a lack of thermal barriers between cells.
The fire-suppression system was incapable of stopping the thermal runaway condition.
The structure had no ability to ventilate flammable off-gases once the HVAC switched off.
APS’ emergency response plan (ERP) did not have an extinguishing, ventilation and entry procedure.

Both the entity and NERC acknowledged that McMicken was “constructed according to the standards at the time”; the shortcomings that led to the explosion were because “the contributing factors … were not well known at the time this BESS was commissioned.” While standards organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association have taken notice of the incident, mandatory regulations take time to develop. In the meantime, many utilities operate facilities similar to McMicken that may face similar risks.

In addition to improved cell quality, a manufacturing issue, the APS report identified five stages in the buildup to the explosion where prior action by the utility could have prevented disaster. First, barriers inside the battery modules could have prevented cell-to-cell cascading. Spacing battery modules farther apart could have hindered module-to-module cascading as well.

Designers also should have provided some means for the flammable gases to be ventilated before they reached dangerous levels, along with alternative ways of reducing the temperature of the battery modules, the report said. The reliance on a clean agent like Novec 1230 — acknowledged by its own manufacturer to be insufficient to address thermal runaway — speaks to the designers’ lack of consideration for thermal issues other than fire.

Management “of thermal runaway differs from that of a conventional fire, specifically because starving a thermal runaway event of oxygen may have little effect,” APS’ report observed. “Instead, heat must be removed (by cooling with water), or the fuel must [be] dispersed in order to stop a thermal runaway event.”

Finally, the ERP developed by AES lacked instructions for entering the system after the fire-suppression system had been discharged, focusing instead on electrical shutdown procedures, roles and responsibilities in an emergency, and when to notify the fire department. APS noted that “none of the BESS suppliers [at the time] had conveyed that a large flammable gas hazard or … cascading thermal runaway was possible.”

This communication breakdown had major consequences when first responders were on the scene. Firefighters with no knowledge of BESS construction had no choice but to improvise an entry procedure on their own, with catastrophic results. APS recommended that detailed procedures be worked out ahead of time, communicated to all appropriate responders, and posted outside the BESS structure.

In its Lessons Learned report, NERC reiterated these recommendations, along with additional suggestions from an “industry substation fire expert” such as fire alarm control panels in facilities, including flammable gas monitoring capabilities, so that first responders can monitor conditions from a safe distance. Most importantly, all of these systems, and their risks, should be familiar to anyone who may find themselves in harm’s way.

“The fire services should not be seeing a BESS for the first time when 911 is called. … Conduct training, familiarization tours and exercises with your local fire department,” NERC recommended, adding that regular exercises with the first response community can help to “validate the plan or identify gaps.” The organization suggested that such exercises could follow the approach laid out in a previous Lessons Learned report that focused on utilities’ relationships with first responders in emergencies.

April 1, 2021

Biden Infrastructure Plan Would Boost Clean Energy

President Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan has plenty for clean energy advocates of all stripes to like. For transmission advocates, the plan includes an investment tax credit aimed at building 20 GW of high voltage lines; for the solar industry, a 10-year extension of a direct-pay ITC for solar and storage; and for the carbon-capture contingent, “pioneer facilities” to demonstrate large-scale carbon capture for steel, cement and chemical production.

Biden’s framing of the infrastructure package as the American Jobs Plan — and its repeated references to good-paying, union jobs — reflect the White House strategy to build support for the plan across a broad spectrum of voters.

“My American jobs plan would put hundreds of thousands of people to work,” Biden said on Wednesday, speaking about the plan in Pittsburgh. “Line workers, electricians, laborers, laying thousands of miles of transmission lines, building a modern, resilient, fully clean grid and capping hundreds of thousands of orphaned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up because they’re abandoned, paying the same exact rate that a union man or woman would get having dug that well in the first place.”

Biden infrastructure plan — | © *RTO Insider*

At the same time, the plan’s energy provisions bear the stamp of policy recommendations clean energy groups have been advancing in reports and webinars since the election.

As outlined in a White House fact sheet, key energy provisions in the American Jobs Plan include:

a federal Clean Energy Standard. The plan envisions an expanded energy efficiency and CES to help move the U.S. to carbon-free power by 2035, with an ongoing role for both hydropower and nuclear.
streamlined permitting. The White House said it “will use smart, coordinated infrastructure permitting to expedite federal decisions, while prioritizing community consultation, and maximizing equity, health and environmental benefits.”
transportation electrification. The plan includes $174 billion for point-of-sale rebates and tax incentives for consumers buying American-made EVs, as well as money to replace 50,000 diesel transit vehicles and electrify 20% of school buses.
federal procurement. The plan would make the federal government a major clean energy offtaker by purchasing “24/7 clean power for federal buildings.”
grid siting and finance. A new Grid Deployment Authority at the Department of Energy would “leverage existing rights of way — along roads and railways — and [support] creative financing tools to spur additional high-priority, high-voltage transmission lines.”
direct-pay 45Q. The plan would modify and expand the bipartisan Section 45Q tax credit “to accelerate responsible carbon capture deployment and ensure permanent storage.” The program would be direct pay, making it easier to use for hard-to-decarbonize industrial applications, direct air capture and retrofits of existing power plants.
equity. The plan reiterates Biden’s pledge to ensure 40% of the benefits of federal investments will target low-income and disadvantaged communities. “By pairing an investment in 15 decarbonized hydrogen demonstration projects in distressed communities with a new production tax credit, we can spur capital-project retrofits and installations that bolster and decarbonize our industry,” the White House said.

“Too often economic growth and recovery is concentrated on the coasts,” Biden said in Pittsburgh. “Too often investments have failed to meet the needs of marginalized communities left behind. There’s talent, innovation, everywhere.”

An End to Stopgap Incentives

While Biden’s plan makes repeated references to its bipartisan components, like 45Q, initial reactions from Republicans have been negative. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the plan’s funding source — increasing the corporate income tax from 21% to 28% — a “Trojan horse” aimed at “wealth redistribution.”

Any infrastructure package should be more narrowly focused on “things that people really need in terms of the infrastructure of the nation — the roads, the bridges, the highways, the ports, the dams,” he said.

But clean energy advocates were quick to support the plan. In an emailed statement, American Council on Renewable Energy CEO Gregory Wetstone said Biden’s plan “will move the clean energy sector beyond the endless cycles of temporary stopgap incentives toward a stable, long-term tax platform that will put millions of Americans back to work, upgrading our outdated grid and building a 21st century renewable energy economy. The direct pay option for renewable generation credits will go a long way toward accelerating the deployment needed to decarbonize the power sector by 2035, and new incentives for transmission and energy storage will be key to securing a more reliable, efficient and cleaner electric power grid.”

Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, applauded the plan while focusing her comments on job creation and equity. “An upcoming jobs study will show that solar has a unionization rate of 10.3%, which is substantially more than previously estimated and higher than the economy-wide average. These union jobs, along with numerous other career-sustaining jobs in solar, offer another moment to prioritize equity and create opportunities in every community, regardless of zip code, including for fossil fuel workers who are looking to continue their careers in the energy sector.”

Congressional Prospects

Hopper also acknowledged that getting any clean energy legislation through Congress will be a challenge. “The release of these critical infrastructure priorities is just the beginning of a long policymaking process over the coming weeks and months that will require continued focus and determination on the part of elected officials,” she said.

There is considerable overlap between the Biden plan and energy and infrastructure bills House Democrats have rolled out in recent weeks, albeit with less ambitious spending. The Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act, introduced March 2, would authorize $565 billion over 10 years to get the nation to net zero by 2050. The bill would provide $500 million to boost the deployment of electric vehicle chargers versus Biden’s goal of building out a national network of 500,000 chargers by 2030, exact price tag unspecified.

The Leading Infrastructure For Tomorrow’s (LIFT) America Act, introduced March 11, calls for a $312 billion investment in energy, water, broadband and health care infrastructure — the same sectors targeted for upgrades and modernization in the Biden plan. LIFT proposes $500 million for energy-efficient retrofits at public schools, while Biden is asking for $100 billion for retrofits and for new schools that are “cutting-edge, energy-efficient and electrified.” (See LIFT Act Could Pour $312B into Infrastructure.)

Recent hearings on both bills underlined the considerable divide between Democrats and Republicans. While House Democrats have championed the CLEAN Future Act as an innovation and job generator, Republicans have countered that it is a roadmap for implementing the Green New Deal.

The bill and its goal of decarbonizing the U.S. energy system would “destroy our livelihoods, disrupt families, decimate communities, increase utility bills [and] threaten the stability our grid,” said Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) at a March 18 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change. (See Battle Lines Drawn over CLEAN Future Act.)

A few hours before Biden’s speech, Jeffrey Sachs, president of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, predicted that, like the president’s COVID-19 package, the American Jobs Plan would have to be passed via a reconciliation process. Speaking at a webinar on the SDSN’s Zero Carbon Action Plan, Sachs said, “There will be 10 Republican senators that say, ‘Look, we want the country to move forward; we’ll work with the administration.’ Otherwise, they’re going to pass this on a reconciliation, or the filibuster is going to be ended because we’re really coming to a showdown on this issue.”

April 1, 2021March 13, 2024

Big Question Looms over Oahu Energy Storage Facility

Hawaii Electric (HECO) says a proposed massive battery storage facility on Oahu will help fill the capacity gap left by the closure of a 180-MW AES coal-fired plant in September 2022.

But a big question remains: What will power the Kapolei Energy Storage (KES) project?

That issue came to a head during a meeting between HECO and the state’s Public Utilities Commission on March 16. (See Discontent Mounts over HECO Coal Plant Closure Plans.)

Because the 185-MW/565 MWh KES project — slated for completion in June 2022 — is battery-only, HECO’s long-term plan is to charge the facility with output from other renewable energy resources.

But most of those projects will not be completed before shutdown of the AES plant, raising concerns about energy shortfalls September-November 2022 and July-October 2023, periods of high energy use on the island. HECO noted that October energy reserves in particular will not only be tight, but potentially lower than projected capacity needs.

During the March meeting, HECO argued that KES could be charged by Oahu’s oil-fired plants in the near term to fill the capacity gap, a move PUC Chair James Griffin equated to “going from cigarettes to crack.” Griffin said that his “baseline” expectation is for HECO to move completely away from oil in a “safe” and “cost-effective” manner.

Taking the Long View

In a March 24 filing with the PUC, HECO acknowledged Griffin’s concerns without offering the type of specific details likely to address them. The company said the complexity of moving to a renewables-based grid necessitates a back-and-forth approach to resource use, with oil-fired units needed to charge the batteries in those tight months until more renewable generation comes online.

“This transition will necessarily occur as part of a planned progression; it cannot occur at once,” the utility wrote. “Over time, fossil fuel generation will continue to decrease, and renewable generation will continue to grow. But for a relatively short time — not indefinitely — fuel oil is still expected to be called upon to replace at least a portion of the energy that would have otherwise been provided by coal (i.e., the recent procurements and programs did not yield sufficient renewable energy to displace all of the energy that is normally provided by the AES Hawaii coal plant).”

HECO also noted that the “total amount of fuel oil needed to replace the AES coal plant will be less with the KES Project in operation than without it,” because KES can store excess energy from existing renewable energy resources and reduce overall need for oil.

“As recently emphasized by the Commission, this energy mix currently skews toward fossil fuel usage until more renewables are added to the system, which could include customer DER programs, community based renewable energy projects and future grid-scale renewables, among others,” the utility said.

HECO’s filing also said that KES will lower electricity prices for customers “over the course of the project,” although prices could be higher for the span of time when oil is used heavily.

Supply Constraints

The developer behind KES, Plus Power, submitted its own filing restating its belief in the value of KES. The company did not address Griffin’s core contention about using oil-fired generation to charge KES, but instead pointed to the ability of the project to increase grid resilience and help wean Hawaii off fossil fuels over time.

“Having KES online serves as a transitional step that enables future distributed and utility-scale renewable energy projects without further reliance on fossil fuel plants,” the company wrote.

Plus Power urged the PUC to hasten approval of KES, contending that “upstream constraints in the global supply chain for battery storage raw materials is constraining battery cell and unit availability significantly through 2023.”

“To lock in the price and schedule of delivery, KES is poised to execute a battery supply agreement in the coming weeks which requires a substantial non-refundable deposit,” the company said. “Regulatory uncertainty puts KES in a challenging position to make that decision and ensure the deliveries that will make KES a reality in 2022.”

The PUC also asked developers of the various renewable projects intended to eventually replace the AES to respond to their concerns. Those that did — AES, Innergex, Longroad Energy, Plus Power, 174 Power Global and Clearway Energy Group — largely reiterated their commitment to renewable energy while suggesting that their projects could be brought online a few weeks or months earlier if the various discussions and permits related to them were accelerated.

April 1, 2021November 2, 2023

Connecticut Town Wants More Diversity in Sustainability Initiative

The town of West Hartford, Conn., is struggling to bring diverse voices to its new all-volunteer Sustainability Advisory Group.

The Town Council passed a resolution in February to form the group as a civilian task force to support town staff. Officials want the membership to “reflect West Hartford’s diversity and bring new voices to the table,” Catherine Diviney, energy specialist for the town, said during a webinar on Tuesday.

But members of the town’s Clean Energy Commission last week discussed challenges they are facing in finding a diverse group of volunteers. Recruiting for the 20-member group is still in process. Now, the commission wants to find options for attracting a diverse base by compensating individuals who might need financial support in order to participate.

The primary role of the group will be to assist the town with its Sustainable CT application, which is due in August. The state program certifies municipalities by awarding points for activities in a variety of categories, such as equity, clean transportation and renewable energy infrastructure.

The town, Diviney said, also expects that the group’s discussions will “spur new ideas and future action that we haven’t even yet considered.”

West Hartford’s population is 27% people of color, according to Mayor Shari Cantor, who gave a welcome message for the Sierra Club-hosted webinar on 100% renewable energy in municipalities.

“Many people think of West Hartford as a wealthy, white suburb of Hartford; however, we are in fact a really diverse community,” Cantor said.

There are more than 80 languages other than English spoken in the town’s 24,000 households, she said, and 27% of area students receive free and reduced lunch.

“While energy and sustainability have been on our agenda for a long time, I believe we should and can do much more, especially for those families that are struggling,” she said.

The energy commission is in the process of updating a comprehensive energy plan for the town that was adopted in 2009. Cantor said the council will consider the final draft of that plan as soon as it completes the town budget.

In its update, the commission expanded the energy plan from a focus only on town operations to include the entire West Hartford community. Diviney said the commission also included a statement on equity and environmental justice.

The statement says that the town must seek out multiple perspectives to move forward on energy in a meaningful and inclusive manner. It also says that an inclusive pathway involves calling out individual and systemic racism and dismantling barriers.

Last year, municipal energy use in West Hartford was 100% clean energy, but Diviney said the town needs to step up its efforts.

“I feel like we’re lacking a sense of urgency,” she said, adding that passing a climate emergency resolution might help create that urgency. The energy commission has agreed to vote in April on whether to bring a draft emergency resolution to the council.

Diviney said the town also needs to “say no to fossil fuels and make that commitment to an alternative path.”

April 1, 2021November 29, 2023

Bill Would Tighten Oversight for Nevada Gas Providers

Nevada’s natural gas utilities would be required to seek approval every three years for their long-term infrastructure plans, under a bill introduced in the Legislature.

Assembly Bill 380 would require Southwest Gas and NV Energy to file an “infrastructure, supply and alternatives plan” with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. The commission would hold a hearing on the plan before deciding whether to approve, modify or reject it.

The plan would contain a cost-benefit analysis of proposed projects and a comparison to alternatives, including doing nothing. The analysis would look at a wide range of factors, including the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from new infrastructure and impacts to indoor air quality.

AB380 was introduced last week by Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen (D). The bill, which was drafted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, was referred to the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure. A hearing date had not yet been set.

Proponents of AB380 said it would bring greater accountability to the gas utilities.

“This bill would scrutinize gas utility investments to make sure we are not making investments we will soon regret,” the Nevada Collaborative Conservation Network, a coalition of conservation groups, said in an overview of its 2021 legislative priorities. “This bill will protect gas ratepayers and ensure that any investments made are in line with the state’s climate goals.”

Southwest Gas, the state’s largest provider, opposes the bill.

“AB380 effectively bans natural gas, places unnecessary financial burdens on Nevada families and businesses and aims to eliminate thousands of jobs,” the company said in a statement provided to NetZero Insider.

While Southwest Gas said it’s committed to helping the state meet its emissions targets, “we are confident policymakers will agree there is more than one path to achieving these goals,” the company said.

AB380 would create a planning process for the gas utilities that would be similar to that of NV Energy’s electric utility.

NV Energy must file an integrated resource plan every three years with PUCN. The IRP looks at different ways to meet forecasted demand, including conservation and renewable energy resources. The commission decides whether facilities proposed in the plan would be prudent investments.

In contrast, the gas companies currently submit annual informational reports to PUCN that do not go through a hearing process.

Multipronged Bill

The infrastructure, supply and alternatives plan that would be required is just one piece of AB380.

The bill would set targets for the state to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from combustible fuels used in commercial and residential buildings. The targets would start with a 2.5% reduction in 2022 as compared with 2016 levels and increase every other year until reaching 95% in 2050.

The gas utilities would be required to explain in their long-range plans how those decarbonization goals could be met.

A third part of AB380 would require that PUCN open a docket to investigate issues related to natural gas. Those would include the number and types of customers who have limited options for energy supply, as well as ways to limit the impact to low-income residents of switching buildings from natural gas to electric power.

Transition from Gas

The introduction of AB380 last week coincided with the release of a natural gas “fact sheet” by the Nevada Climate Initiative, created last year by Gov. Steve Sisolak.

The fact sheet underscores some of the conclusions reached in the State Climate Strategy that NCI rolled out in December.

“In order to meet Nevada’s long-term goal of zero or near-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, transitioning away from natural gas is necessary,” the strategy said. And that includes moving away from natural gas appliances for cooking, water heating and space heating in homes and businesses.

However, equity issues must be considered in making such a switch, the strategy said. For example, people living in rural areas may have limited access to the electric grid, and commercial kitchens might need natural gas.

Some cities in California have banned natural gas in new homes, but Nevada isn’t eyeing a similar move at this time, NRDC senior scientist Dylan Sullivan told NetZero Insider.

Instead, Sullivan said, the focus is on aligning the utility planning process with state climate goals.

“That means gas utilities would need to show that their infrastructure spending plans will keep energy affordable and safe as Nevadans move toward powering their homes and businesses with clean electricity rather than fossil fuels,” he said.

April 1, 2021

Green Hydrogen Plant Planned for Pa.

Plans are in place to build a green hydrogen production plant in Pennsylvania that the developers say will be one of the first of its kind in North America.

Plug Power, a New York-based company focused on hydrogen projects, is teaming up with Quebec-based Brookfield Renewable Partners to build the plant near the 250-MW Holtwood hydroelectric plant in southern Lancaster County. The facility will be located along the Susquehanna River in South-Central Pennsylvania and powered by the hydro facility.

Green Hydrogen Pennsylvania — Holtwood Hydropower facility in Pennsylvania | *Brookfield Renewable*

The company expects to break ground in the first quarter of 2022 and bring the plant online by the end of the year. Specific details of the location, the size and the cost of the plant were not disclosed.

Once in operation, the plant is projected to produce about 15 metric tons of liquid hydrogen per day. Plug Power officials said that would represent a “significant milestone” in the company’s plan to establish the first North American green hydrogen network, producing more than 500 tons of hydrogen per day by 2025 to support decarbonization efforts in transportation and logistics industries in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic. The plant is also expected to create more than 25 green energy jobs in Pennsylvania.

“This is another step in our quest to build the green hydrogen economy in the USA and globally,” Plug Power CEO Andrew Marsh said in a statement. “We are proud to be able to bring quality jobs and invest in the local economy in Lancaster County through this green hydrogen production facility.”

The company entered into an agreement with Brookfield Renewable in September to procure energy from Brookfield’s 100% renewable energy portfolio in the U.S. to help facilitate production of liquid hydrogen. The agreement was designed to advance Plug Power’s green hydrogen generation strategy to have more than 50% of its hydrogen supplies produced from renewables by 2024.

Talen Energy sold two of its Pennsylvania power plants, including the Holtwood plant, to Brookfield for $860 million in 2015. Talen Energy to Sell 3 Pa. Generators for $1.5 Billion.) The Holtwood plant has been in operation since 1910.

“Brookfield Renewable is excited by the opportunity to support one of North America’s first industrial-scale green hydrogen production plants, drawing from our 7,300-MW portfolio of hydropower, wind, solar and storage facilities located in 34 states across the U.S.,” Mitch Davidson, CEO of Brookfield Renewable’s U.S. business, said. “This transaction is a testament to Brookfield Renewable’s uniquely diversified portfolio and commitment to sustainability and decarbonization efforts globally.”

March 31, 2021

Vermont Working to Align Energy, Climate Plans

The Vermont Climate Council has begun the thorny work of aligning the state’s existing Comprehensive Energy Plan with a new Climate Action Plan that is due at the end of the year.

The plans will “move in parallel” and are “intended ultimately to intersect so that they are consistent with each other and they inform each other,” Vermont Department of Public Service Commissioner and Climate Council member June Tierney said at the latest council meeting March 22.

For decades, Vermont’s energy plan has been based on the principles of least-cost resource planning, which Tierney said considers greenhouse gases and the use of an environmentally sound energy supply.

“Before the Climate Council was founded, [the energy plan] was principally the place where the state dealt with addressing climate change in the energy sector,” she said. The last energy plan was completed in 2016.

Vermont energy plan — Vermont’s Comprehensive Energy Plan has created a pathway for clean resources, like the Kingdom Community wind project, but now that plan must align with the state’s new Climate Action Plan. | © *RTO Insider*

Passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act last year established the council and gave it the task of developing Vermont’s first climate plan. The act also altered the statute governing the energy plan to mandate that it is consistent with the climate plan and the new law’s GHG requirements.

The DPS and the council must now decide how to coordinate their respective plans. A major overlapping area between the two is GHG reduction requirements, according to TJ Poor, DPS director of efficiency and energy resources. They also will both provide an energy sector analysis for policy and technology scenarios, ensure stakeholder engagement and consider issues on equity, he said.

Some DPS staff in charge of the energy plan also are council members, and Tierney said aligning their work is a challenge.

“We are struggling a little at the department to maintain clarity about the need for us to achieve the mission that we have been given as the chief planning competency in the state on energy issues, as we also participate in the council’s work that clearly informs if not shapes a lot of what we are now doing,” she said.

Recognizing the significant role the DPS has in helping the council achieve its goals, Tierney has allocated about half of the department’s resources to the council. But she said the department must be responsible for completing the energy plan on time.

With the climate plan due in December, and the next energy plan due in January, there is a sense of urgency growing in their development. That urgency is compounded by the fact that the preparation and release schedules for the plans will not line up again until 2033. The council has been active since November, but much of its work to date has focused on building processes and procedures.

“I am concerned about the amount of work that has to be done in the amount of time that we have,” Tierney said. It can be done, she added, if council members can find areas that will allow for compromise, such as foundational data.

“It does not serve anybody for the state to [have] two voices on how we measure greenhouse gases or emissions,” Tierney said. “We need to have some uniformity there.”

While the energy plan will need to model emissions for the energy sector, the climate plan will be responsible for emissions in all non-energy sectors. The low emissions analysis platform that the department is using already for energy sector sources could also support the council’s work, Poor said.

The council expects to issue a draft climate plan for public comment on Oct. 1.

March 31, 2021

Financial Sector Leading on Climate Change Risk Modeling

In the absence of clear national policies and strategies, action for transitioning to a net-zero economy is being mobilized through investors and financial markets, financial institutions, insurance companies, regulators and courts, Maryam Golnaraghi said at a Cornell University webinar Monday.

“This was mobilized not because the world realized that climate change was the biggest problem but … with the 2007-2008 financial crisis … which compromised the financial stability of governments and financial institutions,” said Golnaraghi, director of climate change and emerging environmental topics at the Geneva Association, an international think tank of the insurance industry. A Cornell alumna, she has worked for more than 25 years in senior advisory positions in industry, government and the U.N., and was the lead author of the Geneva Association’s February 2021 report on climate risk assessment.

Central banks, she said, started thinking about whether there were other factors that could lead to similar economic instability.

climate change risk — NASA’s Terra satellite was able to capture the huge swath of smoke generated by the California wildfires and dispersed by the winds surrounding those fires on Aug. 20, 2020. | *NASA*

Despite the science becoming more widely available through the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “only in the last five years has the debate about climate change shifted from skepticism about the science … to a real foundation for socioeconomic development; to a real topic around financial stability, about innovation around labor and trade,” Golnaraghi said.

Among the most prominent risks the World Economic Forum has identified are climate change and its associated financial and socioeconomic risks. Transitioning will affect every sector, most importantly the energy sector, she said.

“If we continue to rely on carbon-intensive agriculture, transportation and production of chemicals, ultimately we bring our climate system to a point where the risk, particularly from increasing severity and frequency of extreme events, becomes so high that it becomes an existential risk to the society,” Golnaraghi said.

She said it is “very important” to reform the financial system to transition to a net-zero economy and encourage investors to think long-term. The No. 1 priority is to be able to quantify the risks and then map out a way to go from experience to forward-looking climate risk modeling.

Material Risk

The key to government and industry collaboration on climate change is accessibility to risk information, Golnaraghi said. For emerging economies, the insurance industry has pulled in the U.N. and World Bank Group to avail these kinds of risk analytics and development of risk information in developing economies.

Canada, through the engagement of the banking and insurance sectors and the government, is reforming its post-disaster aid and is thinking about reforming its risk management, she said.

“I’m also facilitating these discussions in the United States and similarly in England, Australia and Germany, just as examples,” Golnaraghi said. “Now, when you see five major, mature economies start through ever-stronger industry-government collaboration to address these issues, other economies will follow.”

Building capacities to withstand extreme risk is becoming the norm, she said. While international businesses have incorporated climate change into their core planning, she added, the U.S. still does not have a carbon tax or a clear policy around climate change.