Maine could benefit from the designation of Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) for building onshore wind to meet its 2030 renewable portfolio standard of 80%, according to a study released last week by Gov. Janet Mills’ Energy Office.
By following the example of Texas’ CREZ process, the state could unlock the potential of significant remote wind resources that are inaccessible absent investments in transmission, according to the “Renewable Energy Goals Market Assessment.” A 2019 law that updated the state’s RPS called for the study, which was sponsored by the Energy Office and conducted by Energy & Environmental Economics (E3) and Applied Economics Clinic.
The designation of two CREZ, one in the western part of the state and one in the north, would send a signal to developers that certain wind resources are critical to meeting the RPS, the study said. Under the CREZ approach, the state could reduce developer uncertainty by completing transmission upgrades in the designated zones in advance of wind farm construction, it said.
The study suggested that the state issue two requests for proposals for each zone, with one proposal targeting transmission development and another targeting resource development.
A new study from the Maine Energy Office said the state could meet its 2030 RPS by establishing CREZ, in which wind farms like the 42-MW Mars Hill project, seen here in Northern Maine, could be developed. | CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
A CREZ approach in Maine, however, would require an additional study of population and environmental barriers to land development, the study said.
The purpose of the market assessment is to support policymaking on the path to achieving the state’s renewable portfolio standard. The Energy Office is accepting comments on the study through Friday.
Finding 800 MW
The study determined that Maine already has either built or procured enough resources to meet its renewables standard through 2026. After that, the state will need to bring online at least 800 MW of new resources to meet the 80% requirement in 2030. Wind resources in western and northern Maine, according to the study, would provide a low-cost option for compliance.
Six scenarios in the study show pathways for meeting the 2030 requirement. Under a least-cost scenario, for example, new onshore wind development would fulfill the 800-MW need. That development, however, would only be possible with transmission upgrades.
The study’s review of transmission constraints in the western and northern regions showed that, with grid upgrades, the two zones could support 360 and 498 MW, respectively, of new onshore wind capacity in 2030.
Offshore Wind Scenario
Maine could turn entirely to offshore wind as an alternative to onshore wind and transmission development to meet the 80% requirement.
Under the study’s high OSW scenario, up to 1 GW of offshore capacity would be interconnected to Maine’s grid by 2030. The need for new onshore wind capacity would be pushed out to 2035, and the first transmission upgrades would not need to be completed until 2040. A high offshore wind option would require additional analysis of Maine’s grid to understand the implications of adding offshore capacity, the study said.
Existing Transmission
To understand how Maine could meet its 80% requirement without grid upgrades and with a mix of resources, the study identified three resources that could be brought online by 2030 with existing infrastructure. Under a no-grid-upgrades scenario, Maine could bring online 500 MW of offshore wind, 260 MW of distributed generation and 200 MW of onshore wind.
The 200 MW of onshore wind would need to be developed in southern Maine, where the study determined the existing transmission system has available capacity.
The Carbon Capture Coalition has two top priorities for the current session of Congress: providing a direct-pay option for the 45Q tax credit and expanding project eligibility for the credit via a multiyear extension of the deadline for beginning construction.
And the most likely vehicle for passage of one or both policies could be a bipartisan infrastructure bill, said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), speaking at a media preview of the coalition’s 2021-2022 Federal Policy Blueprint on Tuesday.
“My hope and, I think, the hope of many of us is that that big infrastructure package can address directly the needs we have to move toward a clean energy future, including technology-neutral tax credits and other infrastructure,” Smith said. “We are hoping to get to work on this in real time after we move through and get this COVID relief package done.”
Originally passed in 2018, 45Q is a tax credit specifically for carbon-capture technologies: $50/ton for carbon stored in underground saline formations, and $35/ton for carbon used to make other products. The credit got a two-year extension in the year-end omnibus legislation passed by Congress, and the IRS released final rules on it earlier this year.
But, the coalition argues in the blueprint, “direct pay is a more cost-effective and efficient way of incentivizing carbon-capture projects,” attracting more investment and increased deployment of projects. Similarly, according to the blueprint, the deadline extension is needed because “complex and capital-intensive carbon-capture projects can have lead times of several years before beginning construction” and still might not be able to qualify for the credit.
Smith and other speakers at the briefing focused on framing carbon capture as an essential tool for cutting emissions and addressing climate change across the economy, as well as a job creator and an issue that could garner strong bipartisan support.
“It isn’t a substitute for sharply reducing emissions; it’s a partner. We need to do both,” Smith said.
“Economy-wide and accelerated deployment of carbon capture is critical to achieve midcentury global temperature targets,” said Jessie Stolark, the coalition’s public policy and member relations manager. She pointed to a recent analysis from the International Energy Agency showing that carbon capture could provide up to 15% of emission reductions needed to get to net zero by 2070.
Anna Fendley, director of regulatory and state policy for the United Steelworkers, said the technology will be crucial in the industrial sector “where process emissions can’t be eliminated. We don’t have carbon-capture technology on our blast furnaces yet,” Fendley said. “The blueprint really speaks to some of the challenges in the industrial sector; namely that it’s so capital-intensive and trade-exposed.”
Fendley was referring to the coalition’s portfolio of other options for expanding the 45Q tax credit, such as eliminating thresholds for the amount of carbon a project must capture per year to qualify and upping the credit value for sectors in which the technology will have a higher cost.
The coalition is also backing the Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions (SCALE) Act, which would provide low-interest loans and grants to help finance CO2 pipelines and other transport and storage infrastructure. Introduced in the House of Representatives last year, it would provide financial support for developing commercial-scale saline storage — large underground sediment formations containing brine and porous rock — and extra funding to EPA to speed up federal and state permitting of such sites.
“The federal government has a long-established role in transportation: automobiles, public transit and water,” said Charles Hernick, vice president of policy and advocacy at Citizens for a Responsible Energy Future, a conservative clean energy lobbying group. “When we think about the carbon-managed economy of the future, we need to think of CO2 pipelines as well. This is going to be an area that is important for investment, and there’s a unique role for the federal government to really make a difference and kick open the door for this growing economy.”
Big Coalition, Broad Goals
Founded in 2018, the Carbon Capture Coalition and its 80 members are themselves a reflection of the bipartisan, industry and federal support that have coalesced around carbon-capture technologies in recent years.
Last September, the Department of Energy announced $72 million in research and development funding for 27 carbon-capture projects, and the year-end energy legislation passed by Congress included a recommendation for an additional $1 billion in R&D funding.
At present, the U.S. has about a dozen commercial-scale carbon capture facilities in operation, Stolark said, and 30 more are in development across the country. Sen. Smith talked about a recently announced project billed as the world’s largest carbon capture and storage system, taking CO2 from ethanol plants in Minnesota and Iowa and shipping them via a proposed pipeline to saline storage sites in North Dakota. When fully built out, the project could capture and store up to 10 million tons of CO2 per year and “deliver truly low-carbon liquid fuels,” Smith said.
The U.S. currently has 30 carbon capture projects in development. | Carbon Capture Coalition
Carbon capture is also an integral part of President Biden’s plan to decarbonize the U.S economy and reassert the nation’s leadership in global efforts to tackle climate change, said Shuchi Talati, chief of staff of DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy.
“To reach our goal, we have to manage the carbon that comes from all sectors, including power and industry,” Talati said. “We want to leverage the work already done by the carbon management team in the Office of Fossil Energy and consider ways we can apply technologies to develop low-carbon cement and concrete, low-carbon steel, low-carbon paper and so many other important products.”
Retrofitting high-emission industrial sites could create thousands of jobs, according to the Carbon Capture Coalition. | Rhodium Group
Hernick said increased R&D funding for carbon capture is also needed to keep the U.S. competitive in global markets. While older coal plants are closing in the U.S., newer, more efficient plants will stay online here and around the world. “There are still a lot of folks that need electricity and are looking to those coal assets in their country,” Hernick said. “The goal here is not just about U.S. emissions but really global technology and U.S. leadership to address a global issue.”
Talati also stressed that environmental justice will be a central part of the administration’s approach to carbon capture R&D. “It’s not just determining what technologies we need, but also we need to choose carefully where to site these projects,” she said. “They must be in locations where there is support for these projects, where there’s community involvement and benefits for the surrounding populations, including jobs.”
The challenge for the coalition and lawmakers like Smith is finding the most effective route to pass carbon capture-friendly policies — piecemeal or as a package. Smith is for a “holistic” approach, putting together “a broad coalition that can come together to support technology innovations that are going to create jobs and opportunities for people regardless of whether you live in a red state or a blue state.”
“Now is the moment for us to be thinking in bold ways, to be thinking bigger about what we can accomplish,” she said. “It will be easier to put together that big coalition if we are thinking broadly about what we need to do.”
The challenge of decarbonizing New York’s economy is compounded by the need to do it in way that balances the needs and views of diverse groups and communities, state energy policy makers heard this week.
“The most unjust [clean energy] transition is the one that doesn’t happen, and that’s what is at greatest risk here,” said Keith Schue, an environmentalist and electrical engineer who opposes the imminent closure of the 2,311-MW Indian Point nuclear plant, which is scheduled to go offline April 30.
The New York Climate Action Council’s Just Transition Working Group met Feb. 23, 2020. Clockwise, from top left: NYS Labor Secretary Roberta Reardon; Randy Wolken, MACNY; Gary LaBarbera, BCTCGNY; NYSERDA CEO Doreen Harris; Patrick L. Jackson, Corning; NYPSC Chair John Rhodes; Paul Allen, MJ Bradley & Associates; and Brian Raley, Global Foundries. | NYDPS
Schue made his remarks Monday to the Power Generation Advisory Panel, one of various advisory panels and working groups of the New York State Climate Action Council meeting this week, as they have been all February, to conclude their public comment sessions and refine recommendations they will present to the Council in April. (See NY Public Speaks on Clean Energy Jobs, Costs, Urgency.)
Schue said that “simple math” proves the impossibility of removing so much of New York’s zero-emitting capacity while trying to reach the state’s ambitious clean energy goals of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040.
“It’s going to be a difficult task to balance everyone’s concerns, but that’s what we are doing,” said New York State Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon, co-chair of the Council’s Just Transition Working Group (JTWG), which met Tuesday.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Interim CEO Doreen Harris, serving as JTWG co-chair, said the public comments received so far “focus further on specific issues, including environmental and racial justice, equity in workforce development, [and] addressing a just transition from both the supply and demand side of the energy industry, including via contracting standards.”
Just Transition for Labor
NYPSC Chair John B. Rhodes | NYDPS
The clean energy transition is also a jobs transition, according to John B. Rhodes, chair of both the state Public Service Commission and the advisory panel, who will be leaving both roles as his term ends in February. “Everything is better when you plan ahead,” he said. “Plan beats no plan.”
“Not to create a hierarchy, but I do think that the people who are currently in the industry need to be considered in many different aspects as to how they are going to make the transition, whether to retirement or to the new energy workforce that we need,” said James Shillito, vice president the Utility Workers Union of America, Local 1-2. “Not the sole focus, but the primary focus.”
Betta Broad, outreach director at New Yorkers for Clean Power, said she’s talked to community college teachers who say they desperately need students to fill their energy-related training programs, “And that’s a real shame when we’re at this exciting moment with this big transition happening.”
Bill Acker, NY-BEST | NYDPS
The need for students is an important point, said Bill Acker, executive director of the New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium (NY-BEST).
“In our work in the energy storage space we’ve talked to a lot of community colleges about starting programs to train the workforce. And just a reminder: the governor has a goal of 30,000 jobs in energy storage for the state by 2030,” Acker said. “There are a lot of opportunities here, and it’s not just in energy storage. One of the challenges here is coordination of the programs with the industry coming into the state to make the jobs happen, and we don’t yet have enough coordination in that area.”
Susan Gillespie with Citizens for Local Power, in Ulster County, spoke of her experience offering internships to bring young people into the industry. “The secret was not just including minorities but involving them in the plan from the beginning,” she said. “When local groups are involved from the beginning, they have a stake in it.”
New York electric system mix in 2030. | NYDPS
Sierra Club state representative Lisa Dix said labor movement partners want clean energy jobs to pay family-supporting wages and ask state officials to find ways to include strong labor standards in all state policies, as they have done with New York’s large-scale renewable portfolio and offshore wind project labor agreements.
Lisa Dix, Sierra Club | NYDPS
On the transition to clean energy, Dix recommended a longer timeline for people to adjust, allowing for retraining programs and lining up funding for related programs.
“When coal was being phased out in New York, one of the things we learned is that there’s really a short time when a fossil fuel plant is planning to go offline, like a 90-day period, and one of the constant areas of feedback was that period was not long enough both in terms of providing a transition for the communities involved and for the workers,” Dix said.
Jennifer Schneider, IBEW | NYDPS
Coordinated funding is important, cutting across “both the community and worker glidepaths,” Dix said, proposing that the worker-community transition be placed under a state entity, whether NYSERDA or some other agency, with dedicated funding for related programs “so that there is a certainty of funding to ensure success.”
Jennifer Schneider, state coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, agreed with Dix, saying that people “tend to take labor standards for granted and assume when we’re creating a new industry of jobs that the labor standards are going to be part of it, and we just want to make sure that it’s included.”
Power Shift, Needed Tx
Betta Broad, NYCP | NYDPS
The state’s ambitious energy efficiency goal of 185 trillion Btus of end-use energy savings below the 2025 energy-use forecast “is right around the corner,” and planners must look closely at studies of potential future grid demand, Broad said.
NYISO Executive Vice President Emilie Nelson noted that the ISO and some states have conducted studies on future demand.
“Some of the trends that we’re seeing is that shift from summer to winter peaking occurs later in the 2030s, and the estimates vary, and they will inevitably change through time. I certainly support the recommendation that they need to continually be refined,” Nelson said.
Emilie Nelson, NYISO | NYDPS
The City of New York strongly supports state goals to rapidly decarbonize the electric industry, which harmonizes well with the city’s aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse gases and promote climate equity, said Susanne DesRoches, deputy director for infrastructure and energy at the New York City Mayor’s offices of Resiliency and Sustainability. Her comments centered around four main points.
“First, reducing New York City’s reliance on dirty power plants within the five boroughs is a priority for the state’s just transition,” DesRoches said. “Existing power plants in the city are disproportionately located in communities of color and emit harmful air pollutants that contribute to respiratory ailments and cardiovascular disease, and intensify environmental injustices.”
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requires that 40% of the benefits of state investments in clean energy reach disadvantaged communities such as those located near the dirtiest oil and gas-fired peaker plants.
The city strongly supports efforts to site renewable power throughout the five boroughs; however, because of limited available space, closure of polluting power plants will not be achieved through construction of in-city renewables alone, she said.
“Second, closing power plants within New York City requires a buildout of transmission to bring clean power to the city and robust energy storage,” she said. “The New York State Reliability Council requires that there is sufficient electric generating capacity within the five boroughs. … And we need state support for unlocking development of energy storage at scale to ensure that wind and solar is available when we need it.”
Third, the cost of the clean energy transition must be spread equitably and not exacerbate the current energy cost burden issues, she said.
“Approximately half a million families in New York City already are considered energy cost burdened, using too much of their income to pay utility bills,” DesRoches said.
“Fourth, our clean energy system must be reliable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. Decarbonization must integrate climate change risk to ensure the resiliency of our utility systems that serve millions of New York residents. The current energy supply crisis in Texas, driven by severe weather, underscores the need for robust resiliency planning across all sources of energy.”
The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) tentatively approved the contentious relocation of a substation in East Boston on Monday during a public meeting.
The “notion that a substation is part of a fossil fuel past is a false, politically motivated narrative,” Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Kathleen Theoharides said at the meeting. “Substations are a piece of infrastructure that will be critical in our ever growing electrification of the building and transportation sectors.”
The substation was first approved for construction by the EFSB in 2017, with the condition that Eversource Energy and the city of Boston consider moving its planned location. The board unanimously approved the relocation during the meeting.
The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board voted to tentatively approve the construction of a controversial electrical substation, like the one pictured above, in East Boston despite years of pushback from local residents. | Shutterstock
The substation is part of Eversource’s Mystic-East Eagle-Chelsea Reliability Project, which aims to accommodate increased demand in the East Boston area. But opponents claimed that renewable resources, such as solar panels and a battery storage facility, could meet that demand. (See Tx Planning in Boston Collides with Climate Goals.)
Theoharides also cited last week’s rolling blackouts in Texas as an example of why reliable energy infrastructure is “crucial to ensuring essential services, public safety and meeting basic human needs.”
Paula Garcia, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an email statement that the EFSB’s decision was made “at the expense of East Boston residents’ health and wellness.”
“The board failed to consider local alternatives that would have advanced clean energy and reduced carbon emissions, including residential solar power and energy storage,” Garcia said.
Theoharides concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to reopen the question of need for the substation or various non-wire alternatives.
The substation was approved with several conditions, including that Eversource enter into a community benefits agreement “to ensure the neighborhood see additional benefits from the project and that the community would be compensated for any negative impacts.”
Josh Daniels, a lawyer for the environmental justice organization GreenRoots, said the purpose of the community benefits agreement was confusing because residents do not want the facility at all.
“I’m not sure what space there is for meeting in the middle,” Daniels said during the meeting.
The EFSB expects to submit a final decision within the next few days.
A Washington cap-and-trade bill designed to trim industrial carbon emissions faces a key vote in the state Senate this week after its chief sponsor spent a month fine-tuning the legislation.
Senate Bill 5126, sponsored by Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D), would require Gov. Jay Inslee’s office to appoint a task force by July 1 to lead brainstorming efforts on a creating a cap-and-invest program — essentially a cap-and-trade program with auction revenue going to programs for low-income residents and communities of color.
Preliminary recommendations would be due by Nov. 1, with final recommendations ready to be sent to the legislature by Dec.1. (See Cap-and-Trade Bill Emerges in Wash. Senate.)
The program would tackle facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon emissions annually. There are at least 100 such facilities in the state, including the oil, cement, steel, power industries and large food processing plants.
The bill contains many requirements that the task force must consider. These include the mechanics of measuring emissions and enforcing the proposed regulations, how to set up auctions in which companies would obtain their pollution limits, how the auction revenue should be distributed to disadvantaged communities, how to prevent industries from gaming the new system, and how environmental justice issues should be tackled. The bill anticipates the auctions would raise several hundred million dollars every budget biennium that the state government can allocate to low-income communities.
A 2021 Washington Department of Ecology report puts the state’s carbon dioxide emissions at 99.57 million metric tons in 2018. The report shows that from 2016 to 2018 the transportation sector was the largest contributor at nearly 45% of emissions, followed by industry (19%), electricity consumption (17%) and agriculture (7%). A 2008 law calls for overall emissions to be reduced to 50 million metric tons by 2030, 27 million metric tons by 2040 and 5 million metric tons by 2050.
Under Carlyle’s bill, the task force would create a system to set total industrial carbon emissions in the state annually — a cap that slowly decreases through the years. Four times a year, industries emitting 25,000 metric tons or more would submit bids to the state for segments of that year’s overall limit and be allowed to emit that amount in greenhouse gases. Companies will be allowed to trade, buy and sell those permits amounts.
“The bill will establish a declining cap on greenhouse emissions from the state’ largest emitters while giving companies flexibility to achieve reductions at the lowest costs,” said Denise Clifford, government affairs director for the Washington Department of Ecology, at a Jan. 19 hearing before the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee on the bill.
At the hearing, Carlyle, chairman of the committee, said his bill combines market forces with regulatory oversight. “This package will lead us to a [Paris] accords level of emissions reduction. … A fierce urgency compels us to find a path forward.”
“It’s probably the biggest piece of legislation we’ve seen in some time,” said Sen. Doug Ericksen, ranking Republican on the committee and a leading opponent of the bill.
The committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on whether to recommend passage of SB 5126. If passed, it would go to the House Appropriations Committee followed by a full House vote before taking the same journey through the Senate.
Divided Opinion
The cap-and-trade concept first surfaced in Washington state in 2013, with Inslee first proposing it as a law in 2014. Until recently, Republicans hostile to major emissions measures controlled the Senate, discouraging the Democrat-controlled House from pushing any type of cap-and-trade measure. Democrats took over the Senate in 2018, building up big enough majorities in both chambers to provide cushions for this bill to potentially pass.
At the Jan. 19 hearing, reaction to the bill was mixed, leading Carlyle to spend a month revising it. Environmentalists were split on the concept, with some gung-ho about trimming emissions while others were hostile to the cap-and-trade concept.
Industry was also split with some not wanting expensive government regulations and others preferring well-defined stable pathways to combating global warming. Farm interests opposed the bill, arguing it would increase costs in a sector existing on thin profit margins. Unions were also split on the bill.
Ericksen, one of the state’s leading climate change skeptics and a strong ally of Washington’s five oil refineries, argued there is a lack of data that shows capping carbon emissions will aid the fight against global warming. He also voiced dismay that large companies could end up paying for programs for low-income people.
Among environmentalists, several organizations supported the bill, focusing on its efforts to trim carbon emissions.
“We concluded a cap is absolutely essential to bring emissions down,” said David Giuliani of the Low Carbon Prosperity Institute. David Mendoza of the Nature Conservancy added: “We need strong enforcement with strong accountability provisions.”
However, environmental justice groups — focusing on how pollution often disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color — argued that carbon-emitting industries can buy and sell their permitted carbon allocations in ways that avoid complying with the spirit of cutting GHGs. Heavier polluters are frequently located in disadvantaged areas, they said.
“It flows to communities where it is cheapest to pollute,” said Debolina Banerjee of Puget Sound Sage. Jill Mangaliman of Got Green said: “We have no interest in markets and offsets and trading credits; we just want to live healthy lives.”
Environmentalist opponents cited a 2019 ProPublica story that concluded polluters have manipulated California’s cap-and-trade program to the point where that state’s emissions did not decrease. Those opponents preferred a straight tax on carbon emissions in a bill (SB 5373) introduced a few weeks ago by Sen. Liz Lovelett (D). However, her bill has not had a hearing yet in the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee.
A committee staff memorandum said the task force to be created by Carlyle’s bill would need to address safeguards against businesses gaming a cap-and-invest system.
Carlyle’s bill has language that would provide some breaks to emitting industries that are economically vulnerable to foreign competitors.
Ericksen was unhappy that oil refineries were not included in the state ecology department’s current list of such vulnerable industries, arguing the refineries export oil that competes with other nations’ petroleum exports. Carlyle replied that most of the five refineries’ oil stays within the Pacific Northwest.
Stu Clark, a special advisor to the state’s ecology department director, said the list of industries vulnerable to foreign competition is a political one because there is no state regulatory criteria defining what makes a plant vulnerable. He said Carlyle’s bill orders the ecology department to come up with such criteria.
Carlyle told Ericksen: “It’s a legitimate policy issue that you’ve put on the table. … It does warrant additional consideration.”
On Thursday, Carlyle added the state’s oil refineries to the list of industries needing a break due to foreign competition.
Fossil energy will continue to play a major role in the U.S. for years to come, President Biden’s nominee for secretary of the interior, Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday.
Haaland said that she recognizes not only the importance of oil and gas reserves to local economies, but also the need to address climate change. She committed to working cooperatively with Congress and stakeholders to strike “the right balance” between those issues.
Several Republican committee members expressed concern that statements Haaland made in the past against fracking and pipelines and in favor of clean energy are demonstrative of how she would lead the Department of the Interior.
Haaland claimed to be “the highest-rated freshman in Congress on bipartisan collaboration” as evidence of her willingness to work across the aisle on the difficult issues their constituents face in the energy transition. When pressed whether she personally supports a ban on oil and gas, Haaland said that she would support the president’s agenda, not her own, in the role as secretary.
“I realize that serving as a cabinet secretary is far different from being a member of Congress, where I’m representing one district,” she said. “It’s representing every single American, and I recognize that there is a difference in those two roles.”
The ENR Committee adjourned Tuesday and scheduled a second session for the hearing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.
President Biden’s nominee for secretary of the interior, U.S. Rep. Debra Haaland (D-N.M.), spoke at her Tuesday confirmation hearing about the importance of her nomination as a Native American. She is seen here meeting with members of the National Guard in January. | U.S. Rep. Debra Haaland via Twitter
Making History
Haaland said the significance of being the first Native American nominated for interior secretary was not lost on her.
Several committee members also acknowledged the milestone.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) | Senate ENR Committee
“I recognize, as a member of [the Senate Committee on] Indian Affairs, the historic nature of your nomination as the first Native American woman nominated by the president to lead the Department of Interior,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) noted how important it is that Haaland is a 35th generation Pueblo, which means, she said, “that your people were in our country long before the rest of us ever came here.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) took the opportunity to test Haaland’s commitment to Native American tribal interests as they relate to the fossil fuel industry.
Hoeven said Haaland protested Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access oil pipeline and asked if she was still opposed to it. The pipeline was placed into service despite high-profile protests that started five years ago.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) | Senate ENR Committee
“Yes, I did go to stand with the water protectors during that [protest],” Haaland said. “The reason I did that is because I agreed with the tribe that they felt they weren’t consulted in the best way.”
Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said that siting of the pipeline under a lake near their reservation threatened water quality.
Hoeven pressed Haaland on her current position on the status of the pipeline, which is under environmental review again following a ruling last March by the D.C. District Court.
“Whenever these projects come up, we absolutely should make sure that we are consulting with tribes if, in fact, these projects do affect their lands and their sacred sites,” she said.
Hoeven asked Haaland if she would recuse herself from matters related to the pipeline that come before the department to avoid a conflict of interest. Haaland answered that she would heed the advice of department attorneys on any potential conflicts.
The developer of a proposed offshore wind project in New Jersey has signed an agreement to employ union workers in the project’s construction and operation.
The memorandum of understanding between Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind and the unions could create hundreds of temporary and permanent jobs, said Julia Ofman, a spokesperson for the company, which is a joint venture between affiliates of the Anglo/Dutch oil giant Shell and France’s EDF.
Atlantic Shores is competing with Denmark-based Ørsted in the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ second OSW solicitation, which is seeking 1,200 to 2,400 MW. (See New Jersey BPU OKs 2nd Offshore Wind Solicitation.) The BPU expects to announce the winner in the second quarter, with commercial operation set for 2027.
In 2019, the BPU selected Ørsted’s 1,100-MW Ocean Wind project in its first solicitation. Construction of Ocean Wind, 15 miles off the coast of Atlantic City, is expected to begin next year, with commercial operation in 2024. The BPU says Ocean Wind will generate $1.17 billion in economic benefits for the Garden State and create more than 15,000 jobs over the 20-year life of the project.
Ørsted said its bid in the second solicitation, for what it’s calling Ocean Wind 2, included “continued engagement with local unions and support for efforts to create a well-trained offshore wind workforce.”
Asked for an update, the company noted its November announcement of an MOU with North America’s Building Trades Unions covering all Ørsted projects under development and any future projects on the Eastern Seaboard.
“We’ve made a long-term commitment to building our portfolio of projects, both onshore and offshore, with union labor,” the company said in a statement to RTO Insider. “We’re working with unions, at both the national and local level, to develop workforce training programs that will prepare their members for the robust opportunity that offshore wind presents. Perhaps most importantly, all Ørsted projects will be constructed under collectively bargained labor agreements, inclusive of all trades necessary for both onshore and overwater construction scopes.”
Atlantic Shores holds a 183,353-acre lease area (OCS-0499) about eight miles off the coast of Atlantic City, with capacity for 2,500 MW of OSW. It is north of Ørsted’s 160,480-acre lease area (OCS-0498).
The six unions included in the MOU with Atlantic Shores are Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters; Laborers’ International Union of North America; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Locals 456, 400 and 351; International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825; Ironworkers International; and the Eastern Millwright Regional Council.
Atlantic Shores said the MOU “is the strongest commitment to date by a United States offshore wind developer to train local residents and tradespeople and use union labor and employers wherever possible.”
“Union labor helped to build New Jersey, and if our bid is selected, union labor will be central to building its renewable energy infrastructure and sustainable future,” Joris Veldhoven, commercial director at Atlantic Shores, said in a press release.
The agreement includes a commitment to create OSW training and apprenticeship programs and to “further integrate union workers” into the OSW workforce by encouraging suppliers and contractors to sign labor agreements.
Atlantic Shores also pledged in its bid to fund clean energy start-ups in the Minority & Women Owned Business Incubator at the Rutgers EcoComplex in Bordentown, N.J. It will also back 30 yearly scholarships for Rowan College at Burlington County’s certificate programs in Energy Industry Fundamentals and Transportation, Logistics and Distribution/Supply Chain, as well as training for entry-level manufacturing machinists.
According to the research firm Rystad Energy, demand for OSW employees will triple by the end of the decade, surging to 868,000 full-time jobs from an estimated 297,000 in 2020. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says wind turbine technician jobs are expected to grow 61% through 2029 – faster than any other job category. The jobs paid a median annual wage of $52,910 in May 2019.
New Jersey has targeted procurement of 7,500 MW of OSW in the next 15 years as part of its goal to reach 100% clean energy by 2050. The BPU plans to open a third solicitation for at least 1,200 MW of OSW capacity in the third quarter of 2022. (See NJ Sets Schedule for OSW Procurements.)
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ (D) second state budget seeks millions in funding to make good on the commitment he made a year ago to address climate change. However, the policy measures he proposed to put the state on a path to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050 will likely meet the same fate as his 2019 climate agenda, which was cut out of the budget by the Republican-controlled legislature.
Evers joined the U.S. Climate Alliance of governors pledging to support the carbon reduction goals of the Paris climate accord shortly after taking office in 2019. He narrowly defeated Republican Gov. Scott Walker, ending an eight-year administration which rarely mentioned “climate change” except to deny its existence.
“We made a commitment to make Wisconsin 100% carbon-free by 2050, and we’re going to keep it,” Evers said in his budget address Feb. 16. “Our utility partners have made great strides this year toward reducing emissions, but we still have a long way to go. … It is critical that we take necessary and immediate steps to address energy production and efficiency.”
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, shown giving his budget address, is attempting to make progress on his climate agenda despite Republican opposition. | Gov. Tony Evers
The commitment to a carbon-free future was stripped from the governor’s proposed 2019-2021 state budget by the Republican leadership of the Joint Finance Committee. Also nixed was the creation of an Office of Sustainability and Clean Energy within the Department of Administration.
And Evers’ chances don’t look much better this year. Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos dismissed his climate agenda and other budget proposals as “nothing more than a liberal Democrat from Madison’s wish list to his donors.” The budget must be approved by July 1.
After a series of public meetings, the 32-member task force, chaired by Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, issued a 120-page report in December offering 55 recommendations related to energy, transportation, agriculture, education, forestry, food, jobs and environmental justice.
All but 10 of the proposals would require legislative approval or inclusion in the state budget.
“We’re excited about Gov. Evers’ budget proposal. It has a lot of really ambitious agenda items that reflect what people have been asking for,” said Heather Allen, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit promoter of renewable energy. “There are areas of compromise that recognize the economic benefits of renewable energy for the state.”
Allen said there is support across the aisle for some aspects of the governor’s climate change agenda — such as funding for job training in the fields of renewable energy and energy efficiency through the Wisconsin Fast Forward grant program.
“We need to increase the number of Wisconsinites trained in those jobs,” she said. “We’re optimistic there’s bipartisan support for this.”
Allen is also hopeful Evers will win support for his proposal to double utility companies’ funding of the Focus on Energy program, which has been frozen since 2010. Doubling the funding from 1.2% to 2.4% of annual operating revenues would generate an additional $100 million for energy programs for low-income residents and investments in renewable energy.
“This program is actually where Wisconsin is a leader. Focus on Energy has proven very effective in funding energy efficiency and renewables,” Allen said. “We would love to see deeper investment there and an expansion of the program into new areas like electric vehicles and beneficial electrification. These are definitely things we think both parties can get behind.”
Wisconsin Republican legislators are expected to refuse to fund Gov. Tony Evers’ programs addressing climate change in the 2021-2023 budget. | Shutterstock
One recommendation not requiring legislative approval is having the state lead by example: committing agencies and buildings to switch to clean energy use. The University of Wisconsin-Platteville, for instance, won approval in early February to build a 2.4-MW solar array. The infrastructure could save the campus $200,000 annually after it is built later this year.
“More and more projects like that coming online through the governor’s leadership will demonstrate the value of renewable projects for the state just from the bottom-line perspective,” Allen said.
The governor also doesn’t need the legislature to endorse the carbon-reduction goals of the state’s utility companies. Alliant Energy, WEC Energy Group and Xcel Energy have all made public their significant plans to shift away from coal and gas for generating electricity over the next couple decades. Alliant is investing $900 million in clean energy production, including the purchase of several solar farms.
Another move Evers could make unilaterally is to compel the Public Service Commission to modernize and standardize the rates paid to customers who generate renewable energy — everyone from homeowners with rooftop solar panels to manufacturers and institutions which can independently produce several megawatts of clean energy. Many renewable energy generators are competitively disadvantaged by the current system that allows individual utilities to set rates that should be uniform across the state, RENEW says.
Evers’ budget includes the task force’s call for funding of a statewide climate risk assessment and resilience plan and technical assistance for municipalities and tribal communities to plan to be carbon-free by 2050. Evers would also fund a new Office of Environmental Justice with $200,000 over its first two years.
The governor’s wish list includes $100 million in bonds for energy conservation projects on state property, such as the University of Wisconsin System; $30 million spent on flood prevention measures and infrastructure; $10 million from the state’s portion of the Volkswagen emissions settlement to reinstate an electric vehicle charging station grant program; and $700,000 to replace aging state vehicles with electric ones.
“The climate crisis is taking an undeniable toll on folks across our state,” Evers said in his budget address. “Every Wisconsinite — whether they live in the Driftless, the Central Sands, or the Northwoods, or in the heart of our urban areas — has experienced the effects of climate change. And communities of color, low-income Wisconsinites, and our farmers have been among those most disproportionately affected.”
Public utility commissions’ executive leadership must be willing to take a “champion” role in building their organizations’ cybersecurity expertise, according to a guideline released this week by the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners.
NARUC created the guide to recognize the growing importance of electronic communication tools to utilities in their everyday operations. The proliferation of innovative technology throughout the grid has made it easier than ever for system operators to track and respond to disturbances in real-time, but also created many new points of access for malicious cyber actors seeking to damage critical infrastructure.
The problem was highlighted by the discovery last year that hackers linked to Russia’s military gained access to computer networks used by thousands of public- and private- sector organizations. Earlier this year SolarWinds Recovery May Require Extreme Actions.)
Utilities must bear the cost of preventing future breaches, or mitigating their damage, by setting up robust cyber protections. However, PUCs cannot afford to sit idle; they will need their own cybersecurity experts, both to make sure their own defenses are capable of shielding vital information and ensure that power providers’ measures are suitable.
“We must weigh the costs and benefits of utilities’ cybersecurity investments. And should the day come, we must be ready to work with our utilities to recover from a successful cyberattack. To perform these functions, access to cybersecurity expertise is vital,” Pennsylvania PUC Chair Gladys Brown said in the document’s foreword.
Multiple Organizational Models
The NARUC guide draws on previous work, such as the organization’s Cybersecurity Strategy Development Guide from 2018, while expanding on two key areas: organizational approaches for PUCs’ cybersecurity divisions and guidelines for hiring and retaining cyber talent.
Setting up a cybersecurity department may seem like a daunting task for commission staff, particularly if they have spent most of their careers focused on utilities and find themselves playing catch-up in the world of electronic defenses. This is why executive-level buy-in is so critical: PUC leaders must set a clear goal for the new project, lay out how it aligns with the commission’s mission, define how the newly hired professionals will fit into the existing structure and ensure they are treated equally to veteran employees.
Job openings by National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education cybersecurity framework category, June 2019-May 2020 | NARUC
“In some PUCs, [cybersecurity experts] exclusively have external utility-facing roles; in others, they may only secure PUC-specific IT infrastructures, and in others, they may perform both functions,” the report states. “It is worth noting that in some PUCs, cybersecurity may not be a full-time role; rather, it may be part of a more extensive umbrella of critical infrastructure and risk management work.”
PUC leaders must also keep their available resources in mind when laying out organizational plans, including budgetary constraints that might keep them from employing their own full-time cybersecurity professionals. The guide suggests several alternative organizational models to dedicated in-house cyber divisions, such as a mix of internal and outsourced operations or adding cybersecurity responsibilities to an existing division. However, the organization emphasized that “many effective variations of these models exist.”
Recruitment and Retention
Budgetary factors may also strain a PUC’s ability to attract and retain the needed level of cybersecurity talent, particularly given the high demand for security professionals among all organizations. The report notes a 2019 study that suggests the U.S. needs to expand the cybersecurity workforce by 62% to meet demand, with more than 900,000 individuals already working in related professions between May 2019 and June 2020, but over 500,000 positions are still unfilled.
Organizational models for PUC cybersecurity divisions | NARUC
Because it may be tough for PUCs to match salaries offered in the private sector, NARUC suggests playing on different motivators to entice cybersecurity experts. Attractive aspects to employment with PUCs for entry and mid-level professionals include the security of a government job, a positive work/life balance compared to the private sector and a “sense of civic duty” that comes from serving one’s fellow citizens. For director-level candidates, NARUC suggests portraying the position as a chance to tackle new challenges and enter a second career phase.
Keeping skilled professionals on board is another challenge for commissioners because rapid turnover means private sector organizations are always looking for new talent. The report recommends showing employees that their suggestions and concerns are taken seriously, giving them opportunities for ongoing training and providing reliable pathways for advancement to higher levels.
“There is no ‘default’ cybersecurity expert or single skillset that applies to cybersecurity broadly,” the report says. “When hiring, PUCs must carefully consider their state’s cybersecurity strategy, their own cybersecurity strategy, the roles and responsibilities that a cybersecurity professional will undertake and the essential skills necessary to perform them.”
The blame game over last week’s lengthy outages in Texas that left millions without power has left five out-of-state members of ERCOT’s Board of Directors, including new Chair Sally Talberg, falling on their swords.
In a letter the grid operator filed Tuesday with the Texas Public Utility Commission, Talberg and three independent directors said they are resigning from the board after tomorrow’s emergency teleconference with ERCOT “to allow state leaders a free hand with future direction and to eliminate distractions.”
In a footnote in the filing, the grid operator said Just Energy’s Vanessa Anesetti-Parra, who represents the independent retail electric provider market segment, will also resign from the board after Wednesday’s meeting. ERCOT also said the nominee for the last of its five independent director positions has withdrawn his application.
A CPS Energy crew works to restore power in San Antonio following last week’s winter storm. | CPS Energy
“We have noted recent concerns about out-of-state board leadership at ERCOT,” Talberg and the other independent directors said in the letter, which was addressed to their fellow directors.
The letter acknowledged “the pain and suffering of Texans during this past week,” when more than 4 million customers were out of power for hours at a time that led to dozens of deaths. ERCOT said it was “seconds and minutes” away from a total collapse of the grid when it shed 20 GW of load on Feb. 15. (See With Crisis Behind it, ERCOT Now Faces the Music.)
Talberg last week called for an urgent meeting to review the “sustained power outages” and staff’s preparations and decisions. ERCOT executives will also appear before a joint hearing of two Texas House of Representatives committees on Thursday.
“With the right follow-through, Texas can lead the nation in investing in infrastructure and emergency preparedness to withstand the effects of severe weather events,” the directors’ letter said. “We want what is best for ERCOT and Texas.”
The directors recognized ERCOT CEO Bill Magness and the staff for their hard work and dedication.
“The organization is filled with highly specialized, dedicated professionals who bring decades of experience to Texas,” they said. “We have only one thing to ask those of you who remain on the board: Please continue to recognize the fine people at ERCOT and what they do for Texas every day.”
“We look forward to working with the Texas Legislature, and we thank the outgoing board members for their service,” ERCOT said in a statement.
Jeff Dennis, general counsel for trade association Advanced Energy Economy, tweeted that “scapegoating ERCOT’s board here is absurd.”
“To make ERCOT’s leaders targets now (including one who is unquestionably brilliant and has barely been on the board a month) infuriates me,” he said. “ERCOT’s leaders have spent many years implementing a unified vision in Texas for electricity competition. In my experience, that unified vision among politicians, regulators, grid operators, etc., is [incredibly] rare.”
ERCOT’s bylaws require the board to have 16 directors, with five voting members classified as “unaffiliated,” or independent. The chair and vice chair are both required to be independent.
A seven-year member of Michigan’s Public Service Commission and twice its chair, Talberg was only elected as the board’s chair on Feb. 9. Her predecessor, nine-year Chair Craven Crowell, also lived out of state. (See Former Mich. Regulator Talberg to Chair ERCOT Board.)
Talberg does have Texas ties, having gained her master’s degree from the University of Texas at Austin. While in school, she worked with both the PUC and Lower Colorado River Authority.
She has 25 years of experience in energy and environmental regulatory policy. As a commissioner in Michigan, Talberg served on various state, regional and national boards and committees, including a term as president of the Organization of MISO States.
Joining Talberg in signing the letter and resigning were:
Peter Cramton, a board member since 2015 and the newly elected vice chair. An economics professor at the University of Cologne and the University of Maryland at College Park, he has researched auctions and market design for 37 years, focusing on complex markets. He has advised numerous governments on market design and dozens of bidders in major auctions.
Terry Bulger, a three-year board member with more than 35 years of banking experience and more than 25 specializing in risk manager. Bulger was to begin a second term in March.
Raymond Hepper, a first-year director who retired from ISO-NE in 2018 as its general counsel and corporate secretary. After spending most of the 1980s litigating complex tax cases for the Department of Justice, he settled into the utility industry in 1989.
Anesetti-Parra, who resides in Ontario, Canada, has more than 19 years of experience in retail energy. Vice president of regulatory and compliance for Just Energy, she has also worked for Universal Energy and Direct Energy.
ERCOT said that former Consolidated Edison CEO Craig Ivey had withdrawn his application to fill the fifth independent director’s position on the board. Ivey’s nomination had been sent to the PUC for final approval. (See “Con Ed CEO Nominated to Board,” ERCOT Board of Directors Briefs: Oct. 13, 2020.)
“When Texans were in desperate need of electricity, ERCOT failed to do its job, and Texans were left shivering in their homes without power,” Gov. Abbott said in a statement. “The lack of preparedness and transparency at ERCOT is unacceptable, and I welcome these resignations. The state of Texas will continue to investigate ERCOT and uncover the full picture of what went wrong, and we will ensure that the disastrous events of last week are never repeated.”
