ERCOT said reserves had been restored and declared a return to normal conditions Friday morning, ending an operational nightmare that began around midnight Sunday and left more than 4 million Texans without power at its peak.
The skies have cleared over much of Texas and its capitol, where legislators next week will hold hearings on the industry’s response to this week’s winter storm. | Shutterstock
The Texas grid operator said it had not required any additional outages Thursday night to maintain the balance between supply and demand and that only a few generating units tripped.
ERCOT’s load approached 59 GW Friday morning, its highest since Sunday night. | ERCOT
ERCOT dropped down from its level 3 energy emergency alert (EEA) at 9 a.m. CT Friday, saying the system was recovering and rotating outages had ended. An hour later, it moved to EEA Level 1, ending the latter alert 35 minutes later.
“We have enough generation on the system that folks are getting their power restored at a very regular clip,” CEO Bill Magness said during ERCOT’s daily media briefing.
System load neared 58.5 GW Friday morning, the highest it’s been since Sunday night. As the severe weather swept through Texas that night, staff saw about 40% of the system’s generation rapidly drop offline, forcing ERCOT to call for an immediate load shed. (See related story, ERCOT: Grid was ‘Seconds and Minutes’ from Total Collapse.)
ERCOT had as much as 45 GW of capacity offline at one point. By 7:30 a.m. Friday, 34 GW of generation, comprising 20 GW of thermal generation and 14 GW of renewable resources, remained on forced outage.
More than 36,500 customers were still without power Sunday, according to PowerOutage.US, down from 170,000 on Friday. The remaining outages are likely because of ice damage on the distribution system, large industrial facilities that voluntarily went offline or because load-shed areas need to be restored manually, ERCOT said.
Magness acknowledged the “immense human suffering we saw throughout this event.”
“Watching the heartbreak was terrible,” he said. “The bottom line, while fellow Texans had to experience this, we made a tough decision. The choice we had was to manage as best we could with 60% of the supply we had left. The only way we could do that was to reduce demand, and the only way we could do that was with outages.
ERCOT CEO Bill Magness (left) and Dan Woodfin brief the media once again. | ERCOT
“The outages served a purpose, as difficult as it was. Doing nothing was not really an option,” Magness said.
SPP has also returned to normal operations for its entire 14-state balancing authority area, saying it ended conservative operations at 10 p.m. Saturday. The RTO said it had enough generation to meet demand and available reserves and that it did not foresee extreme or abnormal threats to reliability.
The grid operator called off an EEA 1 Friday morning, five minutes shy of 15 complete hours. SPP declared the alert at 6:25 p.m. CT Thursday and ended it at 9:20 a.m. Friday.
FERC on Thursday approved unexecuted facilities service agreements (FSAs) for three NextEra Energy wind projects that refused to complete the FSAs in protest of a 2018 order reinstating MISO transmission owners’ rights to self-fund network upgrades.
The decision marks a setback for NextEra’s Heartland Divide II in Iowa (ER21-720), Walleye Wind in Minnesota (ER21-721) and Emmons-Logan Wind in North Dakota (ER21-722). All three proceedings involved transmission owner ITC Midwest.
In each case, the wind subsidiaries refused to execute FSAs and requested that MISO file an unexecuted document because they say FERC could reverse its policy regarding TOs’ right to provide initial funding for the network upgrade that would accommodate the projects.
| NextEra Energy
FSAs detail repayment of the cost of network upgrades and are signed by interconnection customers, MISO and the TOs that construct the system interconnections.
Heartland said it “expressly reserves the right to file with the commission to terminate the FSA if the commission reverts to its initial findings” so it can be made “financially whole.” It also said interconnection customers should be able to “retroactively annul and reverse” FSAs and TO initial funding decisions should FERC overturn its decision.
The company asked FERC to direct MISO to amend the FSA by including a provision for the possible reversal of TOs’ self-funding option.
As in the Walleye case, FERC refused to amend the FSA to include termination provisions should FERC reverse its position in the matter.
Chairman Richard Glick and Commissioner Allison Clements again questioned whether MISO’s current self-funding arrangement is fair.
“I continue to believe MISO’s interconnection rules may well merit additional scrutiny in the near future,” Clements wrote in all three orders. She repeated concerns that FERC’s ruling ignores that transmission owners can also be generation owners.
Glick said he agreed with the three orders because they “reflect the state of the law today,” but noted that giving transmission owners priority on financing and construction might be unjust and unreasonable.
“The commission failed to meaningfully wrestle with these concerns in its orders allowing transmission owners the unilateral right to choose up-front funding,” he said.
MISO in 2018 acted on FERC’s direction and reinstated TOs’ right to self-fund network upgrades necessary for new generation. The commission in 2015 barred TOs from electing to provide initial funding for network upgrades but walked back that position after the decision was remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. (See MISO Gauging Aftershocks of TO Self-fund Order.) The move was unpopular with some MISO generation developers, who said it could allow TOs to discriminate against some interconnection customers and increase the cost of new generation.
The economic slowdown resulting from the coronavirus pandemic caused U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to drop 9% in 2020, putting the country temporarily on track with the Paris Agreement pledge of at least a 26% cut by 2025, according to the 2021 Sustainable Energy Factbook, released Thursday by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy and BloombergNEF.
But no one should be lulled by that seeming progress, Heather Zichal, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said at a pre-release briefing Wednesday.
2020 saw a record $27.1 billion invested in transmission. | BNEF
The factbook shows transmission investments in the U.S. peaking at $27.1 billion this year but edging down to $26.3 billion in both 2022 and 2023.
“Transmission infrastructure expansion and improvements are critical to enabling the transition to a cleaner electric grid,” Zichal said. “We know we also need new transmission to carry the wind and solar-generated electricity to the towns, cities and manufacturing hubs that are thirsty for clean, affordable power.”
Now in its ninth year, the BCSE Factbook is something of an industry bible, charting the year-by-year U.S. energy transition in detail. For example, the new edition’s top-line figures include 2020’s record-breaking growth in U.S. renewables, with the solar and wind industries adding 16.5 and 17.1 GW, respectively, of new projects to the U.S. grid, despite a midyear slowdown because of the pandemic.
The impact of the pandemic was felt throughout the energy industry in 2020, resulting in a year “of records, but also resilience,” said Ethan Zindler, head of Americas for BNEF.
New renewables in 2020 totaled 33.8 GW, with solar and wind both breaking records for new construction. | BNEF
One of the main, but likely short-lived, effects of the pandemic was the 7.8% drop in energy use across the U.S. in 2020 ― the largest year-on-year decline in at least three decades ― resulting in a 9.2% drop in greenhouse gas emissions. They will likely rebound as the economy recovers, Zindler said, but he noted the U.S. ended the year 20% below 2005 levels, which, at least temporarily, puts the country on target to meet its Paris Agreement pledge of cutting emissions 26 to 28% by 2025.
At the other end of the spectrum, the growth of co-located photovoltaic solar and storage is emerging as a “new asset class of its own,” according to the factbook. With strong storage mandates, and its “duck curve” of mid-day demand drops and steep early evening ramps, California leads the nation with about 21 MWh of co-located storage planned or online.
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions plunged 9.2% in 2020, with transportation taking the deepest dive at 14%. | BNEF
Climate Commitments Climb
Abigail Ross Hopper, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said residential solar markets initially were hit hard by the pandemic, “but they were incredibly innovative, incredibly entrepreneurial, figuring out new workflows, new systems, and really did rebound.”
Going into 2021, renewables were buoyed by passage of the $900 billion federal COVID relief package, which included $34 billion in energy spending, split between tax enhancements ― in particular, a two-year extension of the 26% solar investment tax credit ― and research and development.
Other key findings from the 2021 Factbook include:
The 10 states that have net-zero-emission targets make up about 30% of the U.S. population but account for 35% of the country’s gross domestic product and only 24% of energy-related carbon emissions.
Corporate demand for clean energy — another key driver for the U.S. renewable energy market — was also hit by the pandemic, with companies signing power purchase agreements totaling 11.9 GW, down from 14.1 GW in 2019. But the number of major corporations making climate commitments continued to grow. The industry group RE100 — composed of companies that have pledged to decarbonize their energy supplies — added 65 new members last year, bringing its total to 285.
Coal-fired generation, 19% of U.S. energy production, continues to decline, while natural gas provides the largest share of U.S. power at 41%. Gas utilities and companies are positioning themselves as essential components of the energy transition, providing the grid support needed to continue ramping up clean energy. “If you love renewables, you have to at least like natural gas for its long-term and seasonal storage capabilities,” said Lisa Alexander, senior vice president of corporate affairs and chief sustainability officer at Sempra Energy.
While consumer spending on energy overall ticked down 0.5%, spending on electricity edged up, from 1.53% of household expenditures to 1.73%, reflecting the rise in residential energy use and underlining the critical issue of energy equity, said Paula Glover, president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
| BNEF
With students and their parents working at home ― dependent on power for their computers ― electricity and energy efficiency have become “a social justice issue.”
“It’s not just a quality-of-life issue,” Glover said, calling for state and federal action.
“Energy productivity really is about how we use less by doing more,” she said. “We need more efficient homes, energy-efficient appliances, the proper building codes, proper tax incentives. All these things are tools and mechanisms that allow consumers around the country to have an improved, strong quality of life while at the same time managing their bills.”
FERC on Thursday modified its Oct. 7 decision disqualifying New York’s Commercial System Distribution Load Relief Programs (CSRP) from an exemption under NYISO’s buyer-side mitigation (BSM) regime, agreeing with the complainants that the programs help companies avoid or defer costly distribution infrastructure upgrades and are not primarily designed to offset transmission investment (EL16-92-004, et al.).
The commission unanimously approved the order, with Commissioners Allison Clements and Mark Christie filing separate concurrences.
Then-Commissioner Richard Glick, now chairman, had dissented from the commission’s decision not to exempt commercial demand response programs from NYISO’s BSM rules, saying the rules “have evolved into a scheme for propping up prices, freezing in place the current resource mix and blocking states’ exercise of their authority over resource decision making.” (See FERC: NY DR Program Not Exempt from Offer Floor Rule.)
Energy usage during a one-hour DR event in New York City, as displayed by a real-time metering platform | NYC
The New York State Public Service Commission, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, New York City, Natural Resources Defense Council, Advanced Energy Management Alliance, Energy Spectrum and The E Cubed Co. jointly filed a request for rehearing. Consolidated Edison also filed a request separately.
Program Design
The dispute grew from a paper hearing begun by the commission a year ago, when it narrowed the resources exempt from NYISO’s BSM rules in southeastern New York, partly reversing the commission’s 2017 decision granting a blanket exemption from the rules for special-case resources (SCRs). (See FERC Narrows NYISO Mitigation Exemptions.)
The whole topic has been fraught with contention, and NYISO in January filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking it to review the commission’s rejection of the ISO’s proposal to exempt public policy resources from its BSM rules (ER20-1718-001). (See NYISO Appeals FERC Rejection of BSM Proposal.)
Upon reconsideration of the testimony and clarification provided by the rehearing requests, the commission concluded that payments received under the CSRPs qualify for exemption from the calculation of SCR offer floors, as do the payments received under the Distribution Load Relief Programs (DLRPs), which it had ruled exemptible in October.
Companies alleged that the commission strayed from its own February 2020 order in applying an “exclusive benefit” standard in evaluating a retail-level DR programs’ eligibility for exclusion from the SCR offer floor calculation.
Similarly, the state and environmental parties argued that the commission, by finding that any program that provides reliability benefits to the transmission system does not solely address distribution reliability needs, contradicted its October order that said DR programs that are designed to address and predominantly address distribution-level reliability needs are not properly considered as providing capacity.
“We also find persuasive companies’ explanation that, although the companies’ CSRPs are triggered based on forecasted system peaks, the relief occurs at the distribution level,” the commission said. “Accordingly, we agree that the CSRPs under consideration here are not designed to address systemwide needs and that any incidental systemwide reliability benefit that the CSRPs might provide is not the result of the programs’ design. That finding is consistent with the commission’s treatment of DLRPs, which may have a similar, incidental systemwide benefit.”
‘Trench Warfare’
Clements said that former Chair Norman Bay was “prescient” four years ago when he cautioned that misapplication of market power mitigation in the form of minimum offer price rules (MOPRs) was “unsound in principle and unworkable in practice,” and that it would place the commission in direct conflict with the states.
NYISO demand response monthly net benefit offer floor prices over the past 12 months | NYISO
“Where there is evidence that market power exists and could lead to unjust and unreasonable wholesale rates, we must address it. But NYISO’s buyer-side mitigation rules have, with the complicity of the commission, been misappropriated toward ends unrelated to mitigating market power,” Clements said. “NYISO’s market rules must instead acknowledge the state’s exercise of legitimate authority and provide for an efficient wholesale market framework that respects the state’s resource mix choices.”
Christie decried “this continuing trench warfare over ‘MOPR-type’ issues in individual cases in which only a tiny fraction of the interested universe can participate.”
While the issues involved in Thursday’s order have been described as an example of the alleged misuse by the commission of BSM rules, he said others may describe them as an effort to prevent retail subsidies paid to certain DR providers from unfairly impacting prices in NYISO’s Installed Capacity market, which is under FERC jurisdiction, he said.
That same day, Chair Glick announced that the commission would convene technical conferences on each of the capacity markets under its jurisdiction, including NYISO’s. (See related story, Glick Hits ‘Refresh’ at 1st FERC Open Meeting.)
“If consumers in other states were disadvantaged, I may well view this matter differently, but on this record — and with the desire to see this entire issue teed up for review and consideration — I concur,” Christie said.
FERC Chairman Richard Glick began cleaning house Thursday during his first open meeting at the agency’s helm, refreshing the commission’s work on several issues while closing the books on others.
Most notably, the commission issued another Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on revising its 1999 policy statement on natural gas pipeline certificates, a review that began under Chairman Kevin McIntyre in April 2018 (PL18-1).
Since then, the commission said, there have been numerous changes in U.S. environmental policy, including the Trump administration’s rules intended to speed up the National Environmental Policy Act review process and President Biden’s executive orders on climate change. (See Biden Signs Sweeping Climate Orders.)
“We are providing an opportunity for stakeholders to refresh the record and provide updated information and additional viewpoints to help the commission assess its policy,” FERC said. “We seek comments that reflect additional information developed and insights gained during the interim period.”
The commission stressed that it would consider previously submitted comments in the docket and urged stakeholders not to simply refile them.
The topics on which the commission is seeking information remain the same:
the reliance on precedent agreements to demonstrate project need, and how contracts with pipeline affiliates should be treated;
landowner interests and the use of eminent domain;
the evaluation of alternatives and environmental effects under NEPA and the Natural Gas Act; and
the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission’s certificate processes.
But FERC also wants comments on another broad topic: “the commission’s identification and addressing of any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on environmental justice communities and the mitigation of those adverse impacts and burdens.”
| Shutterstock
FERC explained that environmental justice communities include those of color and low income, which are particularly vulnerable to pollution and the effects of climate change.
Glick gained unanimous support for the new NOI, comments on which are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, though Commissioner James Danly’s was tepid.
“I, for one, don’t believe there is any need whatsoever to revisit our certificate policy,” Danly said. “But there’s certainly nothing legally infirm about the commission examining its policies and asking questions. I don’t have any particular point to make about the substance of the NOI other than to say that it’s obviously rather contentious, and I will likely oppose most of the initiatives that the chairman is likely to embark upon.”
But Danly also praised Glick for seeking his input and incorporating his requested edits, even though he knew that he did not support the effort.
Next Chapter on RTO Capacity Markets
FERC on Thursday also turned the page in the saga of electricity capacity markets, ending several proceedings while also promising to take a new look.
The meeting marked the end of one of the most contentious issues at FERC over the past few years, PJM’s minimum offer price rule (MOPR), with the commission vacating the infamous Footnote 134 (EL16-49-006, et al.).
FERC in October accepted PJM’s compliance plan to expand the MOPR to include new state-subsidized resources. In accepting the compliance filing, the commission also clarified that resources procured in state-directed default service auctions are not subject to the expanded MOPR. However, a footnote in the order caused confusion among stakeholders, leading to a rehearing request from several generating companies who said the footnote’s language conflicted with that of the order itself.
On Thursday, the commission said it agreed and vacated the footnote.
Danly dissented; at his last meeting as chair last month, he had proposed issuing an order that his colleagues, including predecessor Neil Chatterjee, rejected, saying it would only cause further confusion. (See FERC Ends Trump Era with a Busy Agenda.)
“I believe that FERC has both the right and the obligation to protect their jurisdictional markets from the price-suppressive effects of state policies,” Danly said. “I think that to have anything but a bright line against the participation of subsidized resources is simply an error and a dereliction of our duty to keep the markets properly insulated from the effects of those policies. … To vacate [Footnote 134] now … imperils the integrity of the market and also does not honor the earlier decision that the commission made.”
Similarly, FERC partly backed off an order in NYISO’s buyer-sider mitigation rules proceeding, ruling that commercial demand response resources are exempt from the rules. (See related story, FERC Backtracks on NYISO BSM Exemptions.) The commission also ended its long languishing docket on grid resilience, with Glick saying the issue was best handled regionally. (See related story, Glick Eyes New Standards Following Midwest Outages.)
But Glick also announced the commission would hold a series of technical conferences on modernizing capacity market design, beginning with PJM’s next month and continuing with ISO-NE and NYISO. After that, the commission will examine modernizing energy and ancillary services markets.
Texas and its unprecedented winter weather and power outages loomed large over a U.S. House Energy Subcommittee hearing Thursday, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on how to ensure the country’s grid is clean, reliable and prepared for the next catastrophic weather event.
Grid reliability should not be a partisan issue, said Rep. Michael Burgess (R) in his opening remarks at the Feb. 18 hearing on pathways to a clean energy future.
“When the temperature drops below zero, no one cares which party the electricity comes from. They just want the heat to come on, the lights to go on when they flip the switch,” Burgess said.
“We can’t allow the Texas crisis to be used as an excuse to discourage movement toward renewables,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D), who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. “What failed here was an energy sector that didn’t consider our changing climate. It was a failure to fully recognize that the 100-year storm of yesterday may now be the 10-year storm of today.”
Pallone said he and other Democrats in the House would soon re-introduce an updated version of the Clean Futures Act — originally proposed last year — that would include a national clean energy standard and other policies to reduce emissions in the building, transportation and industrial sectors. Both Pallone and subcommittee Chair Bobby L. Rush (D) promised future hearings on the power outages in Texas.
Burgess and other Republicans on the subcommittee countered that legislation like the Clean Futures Act and President Joe Biden’s plan to decarbonize the U.S. grid by 2035 represent “top-down, one-size-fits-all mandates” that would cost American jobs and hurt families and communities. In their view, ongoing fossil fuel generation will be critical for grid reliability.
“We cannot afford to rapidly transition our energy system without assurance of its reliability,” Burgess said. “We cannot support policies that destroy entire industries.”
The rhetoric aside, the subcommittee heard a range of policy recommendations from experts representing diverse approaches to the clean energy transition. For example, Paula Glover, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said her organization is working on legislation to improve energy efficiency for small businesses, with an emphasis on minority-owned businesses and those in disadvantaged communities.
“This plan for Main Street efficiency will target federal grants to match existing utility programs to provide low- or no-cost efficiency upgrades to small businesses,” Glover said. “Since 80% of energy efficiency contractors are small businesses themselves, this is small business helping small business.”
Another proposal would retrofit mission-critical public buildings around the country, leveraging federal funding to draw private capital “and importantly ensure that at least 40% of the projects are in low-income or disadvantaged communities,” she said.
Inclusive, Realistic, Pragmatic
Craig Gordon, senior vice president for government affairs at Invenergy, put transmission at the top of his list.
“There’s simply no way to achieve the ambitions of this administration and the American people without more of it,” Gordon said. “Massive investment in transmission infrastructure connecting diverse regions of the country and different technologies with complementary generation profiles is key to solving this challenge.”
To support such investments, he also recommended a transmission investment tax credit that could be monetized at 100% of its value.
Rich Powell, executive director of ClearPath, a conservative clean energy advocacy group, called for federal policies that are “politically inclusive, realistic and pragmatic. Too often, solutions are oversimplified to a set of false choices,” he said.
Beyond renewables and battery energy storage, getting to net zero will require technologies that are not yet commercially available, including long-duration storage, carbon and direct-air capture and advanced nuclear, Powell said. While year-end legislation provided funding for 20 new demonstration projects, the challenge ahead is getting them built, which means faster, more streamlined permitting to bring down costs, he said.
He also called for a technology-neutral energy innovation tax credit to encourage more investment in emerging clean energy technologies. “Energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like steelmaking absolutely require affordable new technologies to help them decarbonize,” Powell said. “Without them, we risk not only losing central U.S. jobs, but [ceding] the industrial activity to countries with worse emissions.”
Social Disruption Already Occurring
A focus on technology often minimizes the social and economic impacts of the U.S. energy transition, especially for communities that are dependent on fossil fuel jobs. A recent study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine calls for “a national transition task force to identify workers in communities at risk, and regional centers where state and local leaders can learn about what’s coming and how to manage it,” said Princeton University Professor Stephen Pacala, who led the study. (See Report: ‘Social Contract’ Needed for Decarbonization.)
“Some might be tempted to view policies targeting the deployment of net-zero technology as the highest priorities,” Pacala said. “This view has it backwards because the technological transition and the social disruption that goes with it are already occurring.”
The study acknowledged that the jobs created by clean energy will not completely replace fossil fuel jobs — which would put natural gas communities in Western Pennsylvania at risk, said Daniel Camp, chairman of the Beaver County Board of Commissioners.
While Camp offered no recommendations, he asked subcommittee members to consider that fossil fuel jobs provide $23 billion in wages for workers across Pennsylvania. For many, the potential loss of those jobs “jeopardizes their ability to put a roof over their families’ heads and continue to put food on their tables.”
The Paris Agreement on climate change set a goal to keep Earth from warming by more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2050.
But if global warming proceeds at its present pace, the world’s temperatures will likely grow 2.8 C by that date, according to a University of Washington study.
The Paris agreement target of cutting carbon emissions by 1% annually should be increased to 1.8%, said the study, published Feb. 9 in Communications Earth & Environment.
Adrian Raftery | University of Washington
The projected 2.8-degree figure “is very discouraging,” said Adrian Raftery, a professor of statistics at the university, who tackled the study with then-doctoral candidate Peiran Liu.
The study concluded that 2100 would likely see a 2.1- to 3.9-degree increase with 2.8 degrees being the median. However, the median could decrease to 2.3 degrees, if nations meet their 2030 carbon-cutting goals. These conclusions are based on complex statistical models involving population growth, gross domestic product growth and carbon intensity, a measure of carbon dioxide produced per dollar of GDP.
The 2021 analysis builds on a 2017 study by Raftery that concluded Earth had only a 5% chance of meeting the 2 degrees-or-less target in 2100.
Raftery’s work for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to the 2017 study, and that led to the question of what would be the likely temperature rise between now and 2100.
“Obviously, this is what inquiring minds want to know,” Raftery said.
The Paris Agreement included goals for individual nations with deadlines of 2025 to 2030. The study showed the U.S., Brazil, China, Australia and much of Europe being among the least likely to reach their targets in 2025 and 2030, while Russia is among the most likely. But Russia has promised to do very little under the accord, Raftery said.
Meanwhile, Raftery pointed to France — with high-speed trains and a high number of carbon-free nuclear plants — as a nation to pay close attention to regarding dealing with global warming.
The 2021 study noted that the world’s carbon intensity has decreased 2% annually since 1960. But that is offset by global GDP growth of 2% annually, which essentially leads to the two factors canceling each other out.
Work has begun on the next study: looking at the relationship between global warming and specific locations. For example, how big a role does the distance from the equator have on global warming impacts.
“Global warming doesn’t affect everywhere equally,” Raftery said. Further study would examine the relationship between carbon emissions and agriculture and health, he said.
Raftery would also like to see the nations in the Paris Agreement set annual goals for reducing carbon emissions, instead of aiming for targets such as 2030, 2050 and 2100. That’s because far-in-the-future goals “make it harder for people to focus on them,” Raftery said.
New York state hopes to adopt medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle (M-HD ZEV) standards by the end of this year.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on Wednesday presented its plan for a rulemaking on the standards in a session with stakeholders. The rulemaking would build on the state’s commitment last year to address M-HD emissions through coordinated action with 14 other states.
Jeff Marshall of the DEC’s Air Resources Board said the department anticipates publishing a proposed rulemaking by June and adopting a final rule by December. Under that timeline, he said, the rule would be effective for the 2025 vehicle model year, which can start as early as January 2024.
New York would adopt California’s M-HD ZEV standards, also known as advanced clean truck (ACT) standards, under existing New York regulations on emission standards for motor vehicles. The M-HD ZEV standards are similar to a light-duty ZEV program already in effect in New York.
The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt California’s more stringent standards instead of federal standards. Marshall said that New York first adopted the California motor vehicle emissions program starting with the 1992 model year for light-duty vehicles. The new rulemaking would expand on several iterations of standards New York has adopted since then.
Last year, New York signed a multistate M-HD ZEV memorandum of understanding that suggested states consider adopting California’s ACT standards. The DEC also plans to add to the rulemaking California’s omnibus heavy-duty low oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standards and Phase 2 greenhouse gas standards, which advance the M-HD emissions reductions originally set by the federal heavy-duty national program, or Phase 1 GHG standards.
ACT
The ACT standards have an original equipment manufacturer annual sales requirement that ensures car makers are placing a target number of vehicles for sale in New York each year. Marshall said that the sales requirement increases annually, with a goal of having 100% ZEV in the applicable vehicle classes by 2045. Manufacturers can earn credits for vehicles that comply with the regulations and use those credits for flexibility on future requirements.
In addition, the standards have a one-time, large entity reporting requirement for organizations that meet specific M-HD ownership criteria. Those entities include businesses with more than $50 million in annual revenue and at least one M-HD vehicle as well as state and local governments with at least one M-HD vehicle. The one-time report submitted by the covered entities would provide the DEC with information on existing use cases and gaps in EV infrastructure to inform future rulemakings, Marshall said.
Omnibus Standards
The omnibus heavy-duty low NOx standards that the DEC is considering apply to exhaust emissions for vehicles over 10,000 pounds with heavy-duty diesel engines. They would set heavy-truck NOx emissions at 0.05 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) through model year 2026 and 0.02 g/bhp-hr in model year 2027. The standards also set heavy-truck particulate matter emissions at 0.005 g/bhp-hr starting in model year 2024.
Useful life and warranty requirements are included in the omnibus standards.
“Diesel engines last a long time, and you want the emission control portion of the engine to last a long time as well,” James Symon of the DEC Air Resources Board said during the stakeholder presentation. “A warranty would ensure that the engine emission control system is free from defects and make sure that the equipment is durable and lasts throughout the useful life of the vehicles.”
Phase 2 Standards
The Phase 2 GHG standards that the DEC also plans to add to the rulemaking are based on California’s version of the federal Phase 2 standards. The increased M-HD emissions reductions under the federal Phase 2 GHG standards apply through model year 2027 and vary by vehicle type.
Symon said that while California’s standards are aligned with the federal standards, they include a group of additional stipulations. California’s standards include, for example, a credit adjustment to incentivize use of low-global-warming-potential refrigerants and advancements in minimum ranges for plug-in-hybrid electric vehicles.
Comment Period
Although the DEC is not in a formal comment period for the planned rulemaking, Marshall said it is seeking input from stakeholders on the potential regulations. He encouraged interested parties to submit comments by March 10.
Eversource Energy CEO Jim Judge said Wednesday that the utility posted profits of $1.2 billion ($3.55/share) in 2020, even as it dealt with “the highest level of storm activity ever for our company.”
The figure represents about a 33% increase over 2019’s earnings of $909.1 million ($2.81/share).
Despite severe damage from Tropical Storm Isaias and other weather-related events, Eversource, which supplies electricity, natural gas and water service to 4.3 million customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, also reported net income of $271.9 million for the fourth quarter last year, a nearly 9% increase over the same period in 2019. The quarter-over-quarter increase was off a comparable increase in total revenue, which the company said was led by gains in its transmission and distribution segments.
Judge also detailed Eversource’s long-term strategy of being “the principal catalyst to greenhouse gas reductions in New England.” He said that Eversource has divested all its fossil-fuel generation, reduced methane leaks in the distribution system and improved “the efficiency of our delivery system, our facilities and our vehicles.”
“This has enabled us to be in sync with all the states of New England, which are targeting greenhouse gas reductions within their borders of at least 80% by year 2050,” Judge said. “Our long-term strategy is built around being a principal enabler of that reduction.”
Judge said Eversource has set a goal of net-zero emissions. The company invested more than $500 million in custom energy efficiency initiatives in 2019 that will reduce emissions by 3.2 million metric tons, he said.
Eversource Energy’s reported progress toward net-zero emissions | Eversource Energy
“Efforts to significantly expand our zero-emissions vehicle charging infrastructure and reduce the number of homes heated with oil offer very significant additional opportunities to reduce the region’s emissions,” Judge said.
Eversource’s “most significant initiative,” Judge said, is its partnership with Ørsted, which the company expects to result in the construction of 4,000 MW of offshore wind facilities off the coast of Massachusetts. It expects that will annually reduce GHG emissions by approximately 6 million tons.
Judge added that all the steps in the South Fork Wind Farm review process in New York have either been met on or ahead of schedule since the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management established its revised schedule last summer.
Judge said that recent action at the federal level underscores the “government’s support for these projects” like South Fork, Sunrise Wind and Revolution Wind.
President Biden signed an executive order in January requiring that the Department of the Interior to conduct a full assessment of OSW siting processes to align with the administration’s renewable energy production goals. In December, Congress and the IRS provided additional financial incentives for OSW development that include a 30% investment tax credit for projects that commence construction before January 2026, with a 10-year safe harbor for eligible projects.
“Taken together, these changes add more certainty to the tax benefits available for offshore wind and underscore the federal government’s support for these projects,” Judge said.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission on Thursday opened an investigation into the design and operation of the state’s electric distribution system.
“To address climate change in the years ahead, we will be placing new demands on our electric distribution system, and we must assess how to modernize the grid at the lowest cost for Maine people,” PUC Chairman Philip Bartlett said in a statement. “Recent issues related to interconnection of distributed resources highlight both the challenges we face and the urgency of the need for effective planning.”
On Feb. 11, the PUC opened a separate investigation into the interconnection practices of Central Maine Power (CMP).
An investigation of Maine’s power grid is underway to ensure that renewable energy projects like this solar farm in Rockland can connect to the grid in a timely and cost-effective way in the future. | Crispins C. Crispian, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Feb. 8 sent a letter to Bartlett asking for the investigation into CMP, saying she was dismayed by reports that the utility would need to upgrade more than 100 substations in order to complete existing interconnection agreements. Mills also asked the PUC to conduct a broader review of the grid to ensure it can handle growth of renewables and distributed energy resources. (See Lawmakers Chase Affordability in Energy Transition in Maine.)
CMP must respond to the PUC by Friday regarding concerns that its recent notices to customers about changes to interconnection costs jeopardizes “hundreds of millions of dollars in investment … for Maine homeowners and businesses,” according to the PUC’s notice of filing.
The PUC will retain experts to prepare a report about the current design and operation of Maine’s distribution grid. It will follow up with a formal investigation so stakeholders can comment on the report’s findings. The commission did not provide a timeline for when the report will be released.
Eversource Energy CEO Jim Judge said Wednesday that the utility posted profits of $1.2 billion ($3.55/share) in 2020, even as it dealt with “the highest level of storm activity ever for our company.”
