FERC staff guidance for Clean Power Plan modeling

Staff of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have issued a white paper presenting guidance principles for modeling state plans to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan carbon regulations from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.

The EPA issued the Clean Power Plan on August 3, 2015 as a regulation under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  The Clean Power Plan limits carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.  The final rule provides state specific goals for carbon dioxide emissions from affected electric generating units, including interim emissions goals from 2022 to 2029 and a final goal for 2030.

Due to congressional concern that environmental regulations not jeopardize the reliability of the electric grid, each covered state must demonstrate that it has considered reliability issues in developing its plan.  That consideration of reliability is certain to include modeling.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has entered into an agreement with EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy to coordinate certain activities to help ensure continued reliable electricity generation and transmission during the Clean Power Plan's implementation.

In furtherance of that mission, on January 19, 2016, staff of the Commission released an 18-page white paper identifying four guiding principles that may assist transmission planning entities in conducting effective analysis of the Clean Power Plan and associated state, regional, or federal compliance plans.

These guiding principles address four areas:

• Transparency and stakeholder engagement: "transparency and stakeholder engagement in model development, model inputs and study designs can help identify policy alternatives and effectively evaluate assumptions, while also improving coordination across transmission planning regions."
• Study methodology and interactions between studies: "incorporating changes to current study methodologies can allow transmission planning entities to more effectively assess the impact of the CPP and associated compliance plans."
• Study inputs, sensitivities and probabilistic analysis: "using study inputs that account for uncertainty and test for sensitivity can help effectively assess the impact of the CPP and associated compliance plans."
• Tools and techniques: "adopting new modeling tools and techniques may help transmission planning entities better assess the overall impact of the CPP and associated compliance plans."

The FERC staff white paper notes that while "effectively evaluating the impacts of the CPP may present challenges, these challenges can be mitigated by using appropriate modeling tools and techniques."  Under the Clean Power Plan, states have until September 6, 2016, to submit either a final carbon-cutting plan or to request a two-year extension and to submit an initial plan for EPA review.

Massachusetts to develop wind energy siting guidance

As interest continues to grow in the generation electricity from wind energy, the siting of wind projects is an important issue.  While producing power from wind energy avoids the use of fossil fuel along with the emission of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, society has an interest in ensuring that wind projects are developed responsibly and in appropriate locations.  Regulation of sites for wind energy development generally occurs at the state and local levels, and some observers - both wind developers and opponents of specific wind projects - have complained of bad results from a patchwork of regulations, some of which are not based on good science.

Wind turbines in Ipswich, MA, visible across Plum Island Sound from the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.

In Massachusetts, the state Department of Public Utilities has launched an initiative to remedy this defect.  On October 31, 2013, the Department opened an investgation into best practices for the siting of land-based wind energy facilities.  According to the Department's notice:

The investigation will result in the development of wind energy facility siting guidance based on sound scientific, technical, and policy information. Specifically, the Department will examine the following topics related to land-based wind energy facilities: design, environmental and human health, safety, construction impacts, socio-economic impacts, decommissioning, and the review process for wind projects.

The Department has docketed this case as D.P.U. 13-165, Investigation into Best Practices for Siting of Land-Based Wind Energy Facilities, and has solicited public comment by December 6. Following receipt and review of the comments, the Department anticipates holding public hearings beginning in January.

The guidelines developed through this process will shape the siting and development of land-based wind projects in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has a strong commitment to renewable energy, as evidenced in the Green Commnities Act, its renewable portfolio standard, and in public sentiment.  That said, to date most wind power consumed in Massachusetts comes in the form of renewable energy certificates representing power generated from wind facilities in Maine and other states, largely due to the relative difficulty of siting a wind energy project in Massachusetts.  Will this process lead to more wind energy development in Massachusetts?

 

July 28, 2011 - Vermont's largest solar array compared to California's

Solar energy projects come in a variety of shapes and sizes: photovoltaic (PV) or thermal, large or small.  A look at Vermont's new largest solar project, and how it compares to the largest solar project in the US under development in California, highlights the range of solar power projects.

Yesterday, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin officially activated a 2.2-megawatt solar photovoltaic system in South Burlington, Vermont.  Located on a 25 acre site amidst farmland on the fringes of Burlington's metro area, the $12 million project owned by Chittenden County Solar Partners is projected to produce 2.91 million kWh annually.  This output will be sold to Vermont's Sustainably Priced Energy Development (SPEED) Program under a 25-year power purchase agreement.  This PPA, made possible by Vermont's standard offer law, lets sell the solar project sell its output to Vermont utilities at a guaranteed price set by state regulators: in this case, 30 cents per kilowatt-hour.  This is about twice the average retail price for all electricity sold to residential users in Vermont.  Developers note that long-term contracts with guaranteed pricing are often necessary in order to finance projects.  While the Vermont Public Service Board has since lowered the standard offer to 24 cents, the South Burlington project's contract guarantees it the contract price.

Meanwhile, the largest solar project under construction may be the Blythe Solar Power Project in Southern California.  When the project is complete at 968 MW, this solar thermal power station will dward the scale of a distributed photovoltaic project like AllEarth's in Vermont.

What these two projects have in common is that they will both operate by capturing usable energy from the sun.  Both are new, meaning there are jobs involved in designing, constructing, and operating them.  Both can be expected to displace fossil fuel-fired generation, and qualify as renewable under federal and state policy.

The differences are perhaps more striking.  The Blythe project is a massive centralized project, while one of the key features of the Vermont project is its distributed nature.  Not only can distributed generation projects avoid the need to build new large transmission lines just to get the project's power to market -- a significant issue for centralized projects like those in California -- but distributed generation can even enhance the strength of the existing grid by shoring up voltages and reducing line losses.  Combined with the different technologies involved and the different overall project scales, these two solar energy projects illustrate the broad range of projects falling under the solar power umbrella.

August 26, 2010 - more tidal; subsidies in question

I'm continuing to follow the successes of tidal energy developer ORPC.  This article quotes ORPC President and CEO Chris Sauer as calling Eastport the “Kitty Hawk” of the tidal power industry.  (Add this to Maine's list of comparative titles, including the Saudi Arabia of wind, the Saudi Arabia of biomass and forestry and the Silicon Valley of ocean energy.)


Here's a letter to the editor of the Bangor Daily News pointing out the subsidies applied to fossil fuels versus renewables.  The author agrees with a previous editorial's claim that fossil fuel subsidies were 12 times higher than alternative energy subsidies, but adds additional figures from the Energy Information Agency.  The author claims that natural gas or petroleum-produced electricity gets a subsidy of $0.25 for every million megawatt hours produced -- yes, that's a reward of one shiny coin per million MWh produced -- while wind gets a subsidy of $23.37 per MWh.  (I suspect there is a typo here, because the author concludes that the wind subsidy is "100 times more than fossil fuels", whereas these numbers would appear to support a less credible claim of wind being subsidized "100 million times more" than gas/oil.  The author then claims that recent home weatherization and efficiency improvements have been made "without government subsidies but with free market forces."

I suspect quasi-governmental entities like the Efficiency Maine Trust and the Maine State Housing Authority might argue that subsidies, incentives, and other state government spending programs deserve significant credit for residential efficiency improvements.  Rather than argue those points here, it's worth noting that the author of the editorial raises interesting policy questions about which tools are appropriate to achieve state energy, environmental and social goals.  Due to the complex layering of both energy production businesses and federal and state governments, an exact calculation of the subsidies available for various resources can prove challenging.  This debate is a fine illustration of the challenges of an apples-to-apples comparison of various resources' costs to society.


It's great to hear that here in Augusta, three hiking trail systems are about to be interconnected:
the Augusta Greenway Trail running along the Kennebec River's east bank, the Kennebec River Rail Trail along the river's west bank, and ultimately the Viles Arboretum trails on the east side.