U.S. to export more energy by 2020 than it imports, projects EIA

Federal energy analysts project that the United States will export more energy than it imports by 2020, making the nation a net energy exporter for the first time since the 1950s. Fossil fuels represent the largest volumes of this international trade.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

The United States both exports and imports energy in a variety of forms, including natural gas, coal and coke, petroleum and other liquids, and electricity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States has long been a net exporter of coal and coke. In 2017, the nation began exporting more natural gas than it imports, primarily in the form of liquified natural gas or LNG. EIA notes that electricity trades with neighboring Canada and Mexico represent "a relatively small part of U.S. net energy trade flows."

The EIA projects that domestic production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas plant liquids will continue to grow at a faster rate than U.S. energy consumption over the next decade, meaning the balance of these fuels will be exported. EIA projects that due to "evolving trade flows of liquid fuels and natural gas," increasing exports of these fuels will tip the trade balance to where the U.S. is a net exporter of energy by 2020. When this shift occurs, it will represent the first time that the United States exports more energy than it imports on an annual basis since 1953.

Exactly how large the nation's net exports might be -- and how long the net-exporter status might last -- depend on a variety of assumptions about matters including oil and gas prices, resource extraction technologies, and possible changes to law. Under EIA's reference case which reflects current laws and regulations, the U.S. begins exporting more energy than it imports on an annual basis in 2020 and maintains that status through 2050. In other cases featuring lower prices or extraction rates for oil and gas, EIA projects that U.S. will return to net-importer status by the mid- to late-2030s.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Changes to laws and regulations could also affect the trade balance for energy products.

PNGTS applies for Westbrook XPress Phase I pipeline project

An interstate natural gas pipeline system bringing gas from eastern Canada into Maine has asked U.S. regulators for approvals necessary for a project that would marginally increase the system's capacity to bring gas to Maine and the New England market.

At issue is Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS), a pipeline that spans New England from the Canadian border to pipeline connections in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Its facilities include 142 miles of wholly-owned mainline from an interconnection with Trans-Québec & Maritimes Pipeline Inc. at the U.S./Canada border to Westbrook, Maine plus two laterals, as well as 101 miles of mainline from Westbrook to Dracut, Massachusets, which PNGTS owns jointly with another interstate pipeline, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. PNGTS operates pursuant to a number of federal approvals, including a certificate issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a Presidential Permit authorizing its facilities for importing gas from (or exporting gas to) Canada.

On December 21, PNGTS applied to the Commission for authorization for Phase I its "Westbrook Xpress Project," which would increase the certificated capacity on the northern portion of its system from Pittsburg, New Hampshire, to Westbrook, Maine, by 42.482 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d), effective November 1, 2019. The pipeline's application includes both public materials and materials that are protected against public disclosure as "controlled unclassified information", including privileged information and "critical energy infrastructure information."

In the public materials, PNGTS describes continued increased demand for natural gas: "Growing demand for natural gas for space heating, industrial processes and electric generation is driving a commensurate demand for incremental pipeline deliverability from abundant North American supply basins." PNGTS says its Westbrook XPress project "will provide access to, and allow for the transportation of, natural gas supplies from key North American supply basins such as Marcellus, Utica, and others" via Canadian pipelines. The company describes its Westbrook Xpress project is "a solution to meet this growing demand in areas of North America that have some of the highest residential gas prices in the winter." It envisions two distinct phases of the project: Phase I with an incremental 42.482 million cubic feet per day of certificated capacity, with an anticipated Phase II to bring an incremental 62.989 million cubic feet per day of capacity.

The Commission has docketed PNGTS's application for Phase I of the Westbrook XPress project as Docket No. CP19-32, and has issued public notice of the opportunity to intervene or comment through 5:00 pm Eastern Time on January 29, 2019.

Maine Gov. LePage's 2018 State of the State and energy policy

Maine Governor Paul R. LePage delivered his final State of the State address this evening. Here's a recap of some of his remarks on energy policy in previous speeches of that sort.

• In 2012, Governor LePage described Maine’s high energy costs as "one of the largest inhibitors, if not the biggest obstacle to job creation." He advocated an energy policy encompassing "all forms of energy."
• Energy did not appear in his 2013 speech, according to a transcript provided by the Portland Press Herald.
• In 2014, Governor LePage noted that "heating and electricity costs remain a major obstacle," with homeowners spending nearly double the national average on heating, and high electricity costs posting challenges to attracting business. He described efforts to expand natural gas pipeline capacity from Pennsylvania, and to connect to clean energy resources in Quebec.
• In 2015, Governor LePage used his speech to argue for lower electricity rates and home heating costs, as well as changes to Maine’s renewable energy policies.
• In 2016, Governor LePage released his speech in the form of a letter to the state legislature. As in previous speeches, his 2016 letter mentioned energy issues as a focus for -- or obstacle to -- economic development. Arguing that Maine's electricity prices are not competitive, he criticized legislative mandates supporting "long-term contracts for above-market rates." He also called for expansion of linear infrastructure like natural gas pipelines into New England and electric transmission lines to hydropower resources in Canada.
• Last year, he returned to delivering the speech to the legislature orally. His 2017 address included a section on energy matters, in which he criticized the Public Utilities Commission's decision to amend its rules governing net energy billing. He called upon lawmakers to agree to lower energy costs, to lower carbon dioxide levels in the most cost-effective manner, and to reduce our demand for oil.

Addendum as of 9 PM: WMTW has posted a transcript of Governor LePage's 2018 State of the State speech on its website, as prepared. That draft covers topics including "skyrocketing property taxes," Medicaid expansion, and fiscal responsibility. It calls for increased investment in Maine and workforce development. It proposes bonds focused on commercializing technologies, as well as on research and development, saying, "We must invest in commercialization as we do in research." However the prepared remarks did not mention energy, nor does it directly reference energy policy.

Nevertheless, the Bangor Daily News reports that his remarks as delivered did address energy, calling for lower energy prices.

FERC denies Oregon LNG project applications

U.S. energy regulators have denied applications to site, construct, and operate the proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, an associated pipeline and related facilities slated for development in Oregon.

The Jordan Cove LNG Terminal and the Pacific Connector Pipeline were proposed as two segments of a single, integrated project.  According to the FERC record, the applicants designed the facilities to enable the production of up to 6.8 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA) of LNG, using a feed of approximately 1.04 billion standard cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas, for export to international or domestic markets in the non-contiguous United States.  The proposed pipeline would carry natural gas to the LNG terminal, for liquefaction, storage in cryogenic tanks, and loading onto ocean-going vessels.

Under U.S. federal law, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exercises permitting authority over several types of natural gas infrastructure, including LNG terminals and interstate pipelines.  In 2013, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. applied under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission’s regulations to site, construct, and operate the LNG terminal.  Several weeks later, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP applied under NGA section 7(c) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate an approximately 232-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline running to the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal.

Over the next few years, Commission staff engaged in a back-and-forth with the applicants over the status of liquefaction contracts for the LNG terminal and precedent agreements for pipeline capacity.  The Sierra Club and others intervened and filed protests.  Concerns stated included environmental issues and landowner complaints, as well as an alleged lack of need for the projects.  Meanwhile the Commission issued the project a generally favorable environmental assessment.

The Commission ultimately denied the applications on March 11, 2016.  In its order denying the applications, the Commission cited its Certificate Policy Statement as providing "guidance for evaluating proposals to certificate new construction."  In the Commission's words:

The Certificate Policy Statement establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed project will serve the public interest. The Certificate Policy Statement explains that in deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new pipeline facilities, the Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences. The Commission’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by existing customers, the applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, the avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of eminent domain in evaluating new pipeline construction. 

The threshold requirement for pipelines proposing new projects under this policy is that the pipeline must be prepared to financially support the project without relying on subsidization from its existing customers.  In this case, the Commission found that Pacific Connector satisfies the threshold "no subsidization" requirement of the Certificate Policy Statement because it is a new natural gas company and does not have existing customers. 

Next, the Commission determine whether the applicant has made efforts to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects the project might have on the applicant’s existing customers, existing pipelines in the market and their captive customers, or landowners and communities affected by the route of the new pipeline. If these interest groups face residual adverse effects after efforts have been made to minimize them, the Commission essentially performs an economic balancing test on the evidence of public benefits to be achieved as compared to the residual adverse effects. Only when the benefits outweigh the adverse effects on economic interests will the Commission proceed to complete the environmental analysis where other interests are considered.

The benefits test proved problematic for the Pacific Connector pipeline.  The Commission found no adverse impact to existing customers, existing pipelines in the market or their captive customers.  But the Commission noted the landowner concerns, and a lack of evidence that the applicant had obtained any easement or right-of-way agreements for the necessary use of private lands.  In the Commission's view, these concerns must be weighed against the benefits to be gained from the project.

But the Commission found that "Pacific Connector has presented little or no evidence of need for the Pacific Connector Pipeline."  The Commission noted that the pipeline applicant had "neither entered into any precedent agreements for its project, nor conducted an open season, which might (or might not) have resulted in “expressions of interest” the company could have claimed as indicia of demand." According to the Commission, the applicant offered only "generalized allegations of need."  These did include the fact that Jordan Cove received U.S. Department of Energy authorization for export of LNG to free trade agreement and non-free trade agreement nations as "consistent with the public interest."  But the FERC noted that this DOE authorization for LNG was pursuant to different statutes, and moreover did not apply to the pipeline

The Commission noted that it "has not previously found a proposed pipeline to be required by the public convenience and necessity under NGA section 7 on the basis of a DOE finding under NGA section 3 that the importation or exportation of the commodity natural gas by an entity proposing to use the services of an associated LNG facility is consistent with the public interest."  As a result, the Commission found that "the generalized allegations of need proffered by Pacific Connector do not outweigh the potential for adverse impact on landowners and communities." Because the record did not support a finding that the public benefits of the Pacific Connector Pipeline outweigh the adverse effects on landowners, the Commission denied Pacific Connector’s request for certificate authority to construct and operate its project.

Turning next to the LNG terminal, the Commission noted that the Pacific Connector Pipeline is the only proposed transportation path for natural gas to reach the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal, and that the Commission has not previously authorized LNG export terminal facilities without a known transportation source of natural gas. Because the Commission concluded that the record did not support a finding that the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal can operate to liquefy and export LNG absent the Pacific Connector Pipeline, the Commission instead found that authorizing its construction would be inconsistent with the public interest. Therefore, it also denied Jordan Cove’s request for authorization to site, construct and operate the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal.

NERC suggests Clean Power Plan reliability considerations

The electric reliability organization for North America has issued an assessment of reliability considerations it thinks state electricity and environmental regulators should take into account in crafting state plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a not‐for‐profit regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability of North America's bulk power system.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Clean Power Plan, a final rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions for existing electric generation facilities.  States are expected to prepare individual or collaborative plans to comply with the regulation.  Because reducing the carbon intensity of electric power generation is the goal, EPA expects that some plans will include a shift from coal-fired power plants to less carbon-intensive sources.  As NERC wrote in its assessment:

The BPS is already undergoing a broad transformation with retirements of coal units and some nuclear units, and additions of resources fueled by natural gas, wind, and solar. Distributed generation, energy efficiency, and demand response are also changing the way in which system planners must account for resources. The CPP has the potential to hasten the transformation of the electric system started by market and political factors such as natural gas supply and pricing and federal and state policy decisions with respect to renewables and energy efficiency and other environmental regulations.

But reliability is a key issue at stake in any shift in the portfolio of generating resources.  The Clean Power Plan rule explicitly requires that states consider reliability as part of their plans.

NERC's assessment, Reliability Considerations for Clean Power Plan Development, presents its view of "aspects of plan design that need to be considered to reliably accommodate this broad transformation."  NERC's ten key reliability considerations are:

• State coordination with system planning entities - planners and coordinators working together
• Essential reliability services - "In order to maintain an adequate level of reliability through this transition, generation resources need to provide sufficient voltage control, frequency support, and ramping capability — essential components to the reliable operation of the BPS. It is necessary for policy makers to recognize the need for these services by ensuring that interconnection requirements, market mechanisms, or other reliability requirements provide sufficient means of adapting the system to accommodate large amounts of variable and/or distributed energy resources (DERs)."
• Timing considerations for energy infrastructure development - "Retirements can happen quickly, but adequate replacement facilities must be in service prior to retirement. As natural gas‐fired generation replaces coal‐fired generation the requisite timeline for natural gas pipeline infrastructure becomes even more relevant."
• Electricity imports and exports - "If a state intends to use resources from nearby states as part of a compliance strategy, it is important to determine if the necessary transmission capability is available to reliably transport electricity from those resources."
• Change in generator cycling and operations - coal plants may serve more seasonal peak demands, so "states should take account of changes in maintenance requirements likely due to cycling and the risk of increased forced outages of these coal‐fired plants. Additionally, increased and sufficient coordination between gas and electric system operators becomes much more critical to ensure adequate amounts of fuel are available."
• Reserve margin assessment - "As more variable and energy ‐ limited resources are added, the system will likely require additional reserve capacity to maintain a similar level of reliability compared to a system with all conventional generation."
• Energy efficiency - "Given that EE can be used as a potential CPP compliance tool, it is important that states evaluate the realistic potential for EE to displace load and the likely duration of those impacts. Shorter term EE measures may serve as a potential bridge to meet CPP requirements."
• Emissions trading - "In general, emissions trading promotes additional reliability compliance options by effectively broadening the compliance region as well as the availability of allowances and credits. However, some resource options that might be assumed available through emissions trading may not be, due to another state’s plan. Because trading is optional, states should coordinate to ensure the most beneficial approach of trading is considered."
• Reliability safety valve - "States must understand how the Reliability Safety Valve works and its limits, recognizing that it cannot be used as a planning tool to meet CPP requirements."
• North American and European precedents - states should review carbon market precedents like RGGI and shifts in Canada and Europe toward renewable and distributed resources as case studies for potential strategies, lessons learned in implementation, and insights as they develop their plans.

Some states are already developing Clean Power Plan compliance plans.  Meanwhile, judicial challenges have been filed.  Initial plans are due to the EPA later this year.

Northern Pass files with NH SEC

The developer of the Northern Pass Transmission Project, a proposed high-voltage transmission line from Canada into New Hampshire, filed a formal application to New Hampshire regulators this week.

First proposed in 2009, the Northern Pass project would include about 190 miles of new direct current transmission lines and an AC-DC converter station.  Collectively, the project would be capable of importing over 1,000 megawatts of power from Canada into the New England electric grid.  Its formal sponsors are two companies affiliated under the Eversource family: Northern Pass Transmission LLC and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy.

Early versions of proposal drew criticism and controversy over issues including siting, visual impacts, the potential use of eminent domain, and impacts to domestic renewable energy production.  After a series of public information meetings and other dialogue, Eversource released a revised route and plan in August 2015.

On October 19, Eversource announced that it had filed a formal application to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee.  The Northern Pass Transmission application to the SEC is available on the project's website.  It describes a project cost estimate of $1.6 billion, and a capacity of 1,090 megawatts. 

The SEC was established by the state legislature for the review, approval, monitoring and enforcement of compliance in the planning, siting, construction and operation of energy facilities.  It includes members from the Public Utilities Commission, cabinet level commissioners, and two members of the public.  The SEC has jurisdiction to review applications for siting and construction of large-scale energy facilities and to issue a Certificate of Site and Facility enabling a project's development.  The process before the SEC is likely to play out through 2016.

Northern Pass proposes new transmission plan

The developer of a proposed $1.4 billion electric transmission line connecting Quebec to New Hampshire has released a revised route for the project, following public opposition to earlier plans.  The new vision for the Northern Pass project would bury more of the line underground and reduce the project's overall capacity to haul power.  Will this version of the Northern Pass gain more traction?

First proposed in 2009, the Northern Pass would be a 192-mile high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line.  It would bring up to 1,000 megawatts of power from Canadian power plants into New England, running from the Canadian border to a proposed converter terminal in Franklin, New Hampshire.  From there, a new alternating current (AC) transmission line would deliver the energy to New England’s electric grid at an existing substation in Deerfield, New Hampshire. 

Since it was first proposed, the Northern Pass route has drawn criticism; the project was delayed, and despite revisions to the route public opposition remained.  Throughout the process, many comments have focused on local siting impacts, like the effect of above-ground transmission lines and poles through Franconia Notch State Park, the White Mountain National Forest, and the Appalachian Trail.  Eversource proposed running 8 miles of cable underground to reduce these impacts, but argued that undergrounding more would make the project too expensive.

But the forces motivating the Northern Pass project and other proposed HVDC lines from Canada remain strong: demand in New England and New York for electricity, and in particular for hydropower and other renewable electricity imported from Canada.

On August 18, project lead Eversource Energy announced changes to the route and scope of the project.  While the previous vision included 8 miles of underground cable to avoid visual impacts, the so-called "Forward New Hampshire Plan" now includes 60 miles of underground cable. Eversource described its revised route as striking "a balance between New Hampshire and our region’s need for a reliable new energy source and avoiding potential impacts to the state’s scenic landscapes."  At the same time, the revised proposal reduces the line's capacity from 1,200 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts, ostensibly to hold total costs at the previously estimated $1.4 billion.  The plan now includes $200 million to establish the "Forward NH Fund", a pool of money designed to support clean energy innovations, economic development, community investment, and tourism.

The Northern Pass project now faces public hearings.  Eversource is expected to file an application for site review with the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee in mid-October.

Transmission line for Canadian imports advances

A proposed high-voltage direct current transmission line designed to import Canadian power into the New England grid has received a favorable environmental recommendation from the U.S. Department of Energy. 

The New England Clean Power Link is a high-voltage, direct-current transmission project proposed by TDI New England, a subsidiary of private transmission developer Transmission Developers Inc. and ultimately part of the Blackstone Group.

Designed to feed the New England market with up to 1,000 megawatts of electricity, the proposed $1.2 billion New England Clean Power Link project would feature two parallel cables approximately 5” in diameter, operating at a voltage of approximately 300 to 320 kV.  These HVDC lines would run about 154 miles.  Originating at a DC converter station in Quebec, the U.S. portion of the line would start at the international border in Alburgh, Vermont.  It would run beneath the bottom sediments of Lake Champlain for about 98 miles, then turn east and run over land (but underground, mostly under roadway rights-of-way and railway beds) to a terminal converter station in Ludlow, Vermont, where the power could flow onto the New England grid.

Federal law requires most infrastructure development for international trade in energy to apply for and receive a Presidential Permit before the project may be built.  TDI New England applied for the presidential permit in May 2014, and applied to the state of Vermont for permits in December 2014.

As part of the Presidential Permit process, the federal National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA requires the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate the potential environmental impacts in the United Statesof the proposed action and the range of reasonable alternatives.  In this case, the proposed federal action is the issuance of a Presidential permit to the applicant, Champlain VT, LLC, doing business as TDI - New England, to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in northern Vermont.

On June 3, the Department of Energy released its final draft Environmental Impact Statement or EIS for the New England Clean Power Link.  In that document, the Department found relatively minimal and short-term adverse environmental impacts from project construction, operation and maintenance. 

Once notice of the draft EIS is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to comment on its analysis.  The Department will also hold public informational meetings in Vermont regarding the project.  According to the EIS, TDI New England expects permitting will continue through mid-2016, with construction and in-service dates as early as 2018 and 2019 respectively.

Meanwhile, TDI is simultaneously pursuing other HVDC transmission lines from Canada into the Northeastern US, most notably the Champlain-Hudson Power Express -- another HVDC line beneath Lake Champlain but continuing on overland and under the Hudson River to a converter station in New York City.   The Champlain-Hudson Power Express won a Presidential Permit in 2014.

US Presidential Permits for cross-border infrastructure

As the U.S.'s international trade in energy grows, so too has interest in the process for securing a federally required approval known as a Presidential Permit.

A marker shows the route of a natural gas pipeline in Utah.

The construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure that crosses the U.S.'s border with Mexico or Canada -- think pipelines, transmission lines, and bridges -- generally requires prior authorization by the federal government in the form of a Presidential Permit.  How you obtain a Presidential Permit depends on the type of facilities in question, as permits may be issued by several federal agencies under different legal authorities.

Presidential permits for oil, petroleum products, and other liquids pipelines have been issued by the U.S. State Department since since the promulgation of Executive Order 11423 in 1968.  Executive Order 11423 provided that, except with respect to cross-border permits for electric energy facilities, natural gas facilities, and submarine facilities:

The Secretary of State is hereby designated and empowered to receive all applications for permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance, at the borders of the United States, of: (i) pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, minerals, or other products to or from a foreign country; (ii) facilities for the exportation or importation of water or sewage to or from a foreign country; (iii) monorails, aerial cable cars, aerial tramways and similar facilities for the transportation of persons or things, or both, to or from a foreign country; and (iv) bridges, to the extent that congressional authorization is not required.

The State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources Office of Energy Diplomacy receives and processes permit applications for liquid product pipelines, including water and petroleum products.  The standard by which the Secretary of State reviews applications for presidential permits is prescribed by an executive order issued in 2004.  Executive Order 13337 directs the Secretary of State to authorize those border crossing facilities that the Secretary has determined would “serve the national interest."

By contrast, cross-border natural gas pipelines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, while electric transmission infrastructure is regulated by the Department of Energy.  Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act requires any person desiring to export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or to import any natural gas from a foreign country to the United States to obtain an order from the Federal Power Commission authorizing it to do so.   Section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act requires any person desiring to transmit any electric energy from the United States to a foreign country to obtain an order from the Federal Power Commission authorizing it to do so.

Executive Order 10485 designated the FERC's predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission, to receive applications for natural gas and electricity facilities.  When the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 eliminated the Federal Power Commission, it shifted most of the FPC's responsibilities to the FERC, but Section 402(f) of that act specifically reserved import/export permitting functions for the Department of Energy.  For facilities governed by the Department of Energy, the Presidential Permit process is governed by Part 205 of the Department's rules.  In 2006, the Department delegated its authority to issue Presidential Permits for natural gas pipeline border crossings to FERC, via DOE Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A.

Infrastructure projects subject to the Presidential Permit process range widely in type, scope, and controversy, from the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the proposed Champlain Hudson Express high-voltage direct current electric transmission line.

Report: New England electric sector will face gas supply deficit

A recently released report on the adequacy of New England’s natural gas pipeline infrastructure has identified the potential for shortfalls in gas supply to electric generators through 2020.  The November 20, 2014 report, Assessment of New England’s Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity to Satisfy Short and Near-Term Electric Generation Needs: Phase II, was prepared by consulting group ICF International for regional electric grid operator ISO New England Inc.  It found “a high probability that the electric sector will have a gas supply deficit on 24 to 34 day per winter by 2019/20.”

The Phase II report follows on a 2011/12 “Phase I” study by ICF of the adequacy of the natural gas pipeline infrastructure in New England to serve the combined needs of the core natural gas market and the regional electric generation fleet.  In the years since the Phase I study, existing natural gas and electric power systems have experienced significant changes, with further changes projected.  ISO-NE also identified the need to extend the power sector gas supply adequacy analysis beyond the peak winter and summer demand day, to examine supply adequacy throughout the peak winter demand period (December 1 through February 28).

ICF’s Phase II report presents its updated findings given these changes.  Its conclusions include:

• Despite the likelihood of 450 MMcf/d of new interstate natural gas transportation capacity being added by the end of 2016, the New England market is likely to remain supply constrained through 2020.
• Updating projections for energy efficiency has a significant impact on projected gas consumption for electric generation. The studied cases reduced projection winter peak day gas consumption by as much as 550,000 Dth by 2019/20.  However, this was not sufficient to eliminate the projected winter peak day supply deficits.
• Future imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the region are likely to be well below the rated capacity of the import terminals.  Neither the Northeast Gateway nor Neptune offshore import terminal has received any shipments since 2010, and neither was projected to receive any future LNG shipments in this study.
• The Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline from Eastern Canada into New England is expected to continue to flow at full capacity on a peak winter day. Eastern Canadian gas production is expected to decline overall from 2015 through 2020, even as the Deep Panuke field ramps up its production. Historically, the Canaport LNG terminal in St. John, New Brunswick, has been managed to keep the pipeline full on peak winter days (when New England gas demand and gas prices are highest). In the future, with fewer LNG shipments coming in, the pipeline will flow full on fewer winter days, reducing natural gas supplies into New England.
• The Winter Near-Peak analysis indicates that gas supply deficits may occur not just on peak days, but also on multiple high demand days throughout the winter. Based on projected gas supplies, local distribution company (LDC) demands for retail gas supply, and electric generator gas demands, there is a high probability that the electric sector will have a gas supply deficit on 24 to 34 day per winter by 2019/20.

With the Phase II report now in ISO New England's hands, the grid operator has an updated analysis of the adequacy of the region's natural gas pipeline infrastructure to meet all the demands on it through 2020.  ISO New England describes itself as playing three critical roles: grid operation, market administration, and power system planning.  From all three of these perspectives, projections of a high probability of gas supply deficit for the electric power sector are troubling.  ICF's findings thus may shape how ISO New England -- or state and federal regulators -- reforms the New England gas and electric markets.

Feds approve Quebec-to-NY power line

A proposed electric transmission line connecting Quebec to New York will receive a key federal approval, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The Energy Department's decision to issue a Presidential permit to Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. focuses attention on the nation's international trade in electricity, and may suggest increased reliance on power imports.

Pursuant to two Executive Orders -- EO 10485 (September 9, 1953), as amended by EO 12038 (February 7, 1978) -- no electricity transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. border without first obtaining a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy.  In 2010, Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 1,000-megawatt (MW), high-voltage direct current (HVDC) merchant electric power transmission system across the U.S./Canada border.

As currently envisioned, the Champlain Hudson Power Express project would cross the U.S./Canada border near the town of Champlain in northeastern New York State.  From there, the line would extend southward about 336 miles to the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Rainey substation in Queens, New York.  Notably, the aquatic portions of the transmission line would primarily be buried in sediments of Lake Champlain and the Hudson, Harlem, and East rivers, while the terrestrial portions of the line would be buried within existing roadway and railroad rights-of-way.

The Department may issue or amend a permit if it determines that the permit is in the public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense.  In making this determination, DOE considers factors including the proposed project's potential impacts on the environment and electricity reliability.

In the case of the Champlain Hudson Power Express, the Department of Energy's record of decision states that its decision to grant the Presidential permit was based on "consideration of the potential environmental impacts, impacts on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and the favorable recommendations of the U.S. Departments of State and Defense."  With the Presidential permit in hand, the project developer will be one step closer to success -- but additional steps remain, including both securing regulatory approvals and completing the commercial arrangements necessary for project development.

If the project is built, New York consumers may soon have increased access to electricity generated from Canadian hydropower and other resources across their northern border.  Will the U.S. soon import more power from Canada?  If so, how much, and at what cost?  How will market forces and regulatory agendas combine to affect Canadian exports of electricity to the U.S.?

Northern Pass transmission line faces public hearings

A proposed high-voltage transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in northern New Hampshire faces a series of public hearings this month.  The Northern Pass transmission line would provide an additional tie between Hydro-Quebec's electric grid and the New England grid, and would expand U.S. imports of electricity from Canada.

The project is proposed by Northern Pass Transmission LLC, an entity jointly owned by NU Transmission Ventures, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities, a publicly held public utility holding company, and NSTAR Transmission Ventures, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSTAR, a publicly held public utility holding company.

The project includes a high-voltage direct current or HVDC transmission line capable of transmitting up to 1,200 megawatts of power from Canada to the U.S. or from the U.S. to Canada.  45 miles of line would connect the northern HVDC converter terminal in Québec to the U.S.-Canada border into New Hampshire.  The line would extend south from the international border approximately 140 miles to an HVDC converter terminal that would be constructed in the city of Franklin, NH. 

Federal law governs the import and export of electricity.  To construct, operate, maintain, or connect an electric transmission facility crossing the borders of the United States, Northern Pass must first obtain a Presidential permit issued by the U.S. Department of Energy.  Under the National Environmental Policy Act, this approval requires the Department of Energy to consider the environmental impacts of granting the permit.

Since its unveiling in 2011, the Northern Pass project has provoked controversy.  The public has voiced concerns over the environmental and economic impacts of large-scale Canadian hydropower, the risk of private property being seized by the developer through eminent domain, and a route through New Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest and nearby mountains and woodlands.  In response, Northern Pass retooled its route, triggering a need to revise the project's environmental impact statement.  As part of that process, the Department of Energy has scheduled four additional scoping meetings in New Hampshire:

• Concord, NH, Grappone Conference Center, 70 Constitution Avenue, Monday, September 23, 2013, 6-9 p.m.;
• Plymouth, NH, Plymouth State University, Silver Center for the Arts, Hanaway Theater, 17 High Street, Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 5-8 p.m.;
• Whitefield, NH, Mountain View Grand Resort; Spa, Presidential Room, 101 Mountain View Road, Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 5-8 p.m.; and
• West Stewartstown, NH, The Outback Pub at The Spa Restaurant, 869 Washington Street, Thursday, September 26, 2013, 5-8 p.m.

Thousands of stakeholders attended the first round of scoping meetings in 2011, overwhelmingly expressing concerns about the project and its route.  While Northern Pass has made some efforts to address and accommodate these concerns, many - like New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan - continue to express concerns about the project's potential impacts on the White Mountain National Forest, as well as on New Hampshire's economy, environment, natural resources, communities and people.  This month's events may draw similar attendance to those in 2011 - the New Hampshire Congressional delegation has asked the U.S. Department of Energy to move the West Stewartstown meeting to Colebrook to accomodate more seating.  Public testimony at this month's scoping sessions will shape the Department of Energy's environmental review process, and may affect whether and how the line is eventually developed.

Tackling New England natural gas pipeline constraints

Natural gas offers consumers a relatively low-cost energy source with fewer environmental impacts than coal or oil.  Throughout most of the United States, natural gas is displacing other fossil fuels in electric power generation, heating, and transportation.  But as a recent federal report found, inadequate pipeline infrastructure into New England is keeping prices for natural gas and electricity in the Northeast higher than in other regions.

In its 2012 State of the Markets report, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission described how the availability of low-cost natural gas drove electricity prices downward last year.  However, as power plants, businesses, and homes convert to natural gas for their energy needs, growing competition between heating and electric load for a limited natural gas supply drives prices of both gas and electricity upward during the winter season.

New England's demand for natural gas peaks in the winter, due primarily to heating demand from the residential and commercial sectors.  As electric generators have increasingly turned to natural gas as the fuel of choice, total demand for gas has increased correspondingly.  In recent years, to meet peak demands for natural gas, New England has relied on imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), as well as natural gas produced from Canada's offshore Sable Island field.  But last year, low domestic natural gas prices led to low imports of LNG and Canadian natural gas.  LNG imports hit their lowest level since 2002.  Sendout from the with Canaport LNG facility in St. John, New Brunswick, was drastically reduced, as LNG shippers chose to send their cargoes to higher-priced markets in Europe and Asia.  As FERC found: 

Lack of LNG and natural gas from Canada exacerbated pipeline constraints into New England from the southern supply corridor, including Marcellus Shale natural gas production, as New England relied more heavily on these pipelines for supply. This led to concerns that extreme cold weather could result in some service interruptions, particularly to power generators that generally rely on interruptible pipeline capacity to meet their fuel needs.

In particular, during cold snaps, demand from power plants coincides with peak residential and commercial natural gas demand.  Despite an unusually warm winter that suppressed residential and commercial load during the first quarter of 2012, demand reached pipeline capacity for part of the winter.  As a result, last winter New England consumers paid over a billion dollars more for natural gas and electricity than they would have if adequate pipeline capacity existed.

Unless LNG imports once again become economic, or domestic pipeline constraints are relieved, this situation is likely to repeat itself in New England next winter.  As consumers find wider uses for natural gas -- from converting vehicles and the transportation sector to compressed natural gas, to increased access to natural gas for home heating -- the number of days when demand reaches pipeline limits will likely grow.  This reality has led states like Maine to stimulate the development of new pipeline capacity by authorizing its Public Utilities Commission to enter into contracts for natural gas capacity.  While it may be several years until the constraints can be relieved, other states are likely to follow Maine in addressing the problem.

Shell announces LNG plants for transportation sector

Energy company Royal Dutch Shell PLC has announced plans to build two liquified natural gas (LNG) plants in North America to produce fuel for marine and heavy-duty on-road transportation.

Shell, a global group of energy and petrochemicals companies, may be most famous for its roadside gas stations, but also operates businesses in crude oil and natural gas production, refining, marketing, and research and development. According to a press release issued yesterday, Shell and its affiliates now plan to develop two liquefaction units to turn natural gas into LNG.

By cooling natural gas to around -260°F, it can be liquefied.  The resulting LNG takes up significantly less volume than the gas did, making it easier to ship and store.  Unlike gas taken directly off a pipeline, LNG can also be used as a mobile fuel source for transportation.  Compared to oil-based fuels such as diesel and gasoline, LNG can be less expensive and may create fewer emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants.

Shell's newly announced plants will be built in Geismar, Louisiana and Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.  The Geismar plant will supply LNG along the Mississippi River, the Intra-Coastal Waterway and to the offshore Gulf of Mexico and the onshore oil and gas exploration areas of Texas and Louisiana.  Shell is partnering with companies including subsidiaries of Martin Resource Management Corporation and Edison Chouest Offshore to supply LNG fuel to marine vessels that operate in the Gulf of Mexico.  Under Shell's vision, LNG produced at Geismar will be barged to Port Fourchon, Louisiana, where it will be bunkered into customer vessels.  Shell also announced plans for a similar liquefaction unit at its Shell Sarnia Manufacturing Centre in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.  The Sarnia project is designed to supply LNG fuel to all five Great Lakes, their bordering U.S. states and Canadian provinces and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Each facility will be relatively small-scale, capable of producing 250,000 tons of gas per year. According to Shell, pending final regulatory permitting, the liquefaction units may begin operations and production in about three years.  Shell is currently developing a similar gas processing facility in Alberta, Canada, and plans to sell LNG at truck stops in that province.

Several years ago, energy companies rushed to develop LNG import terminals in the U.S. to increase supplies of natural gas in the interstate pipeline system.  Hydraulic fracturing and the resulting development of feasible production of domestic natural gas from shale resources turned LNG imports' economics on their heads.  Now that natural gas in most of the U.S. is significantly cheaper than imported LNG, companies like Cheniere Energy Inc. are now seeking to export LNG to other countries.  Domestic use of LNG in the transportation sector represents an alternative way for energy companies to profit from the shale gas boom.

Vermont transmission line vandalism

Vermont's electric transmission authority has reported vandalism to a section of high-voltage line connecting Hydro-Quebec's grid to southern New England markets.  According to the Caledonian Record, 167 insulating discs were shot out from a transmission line in the town of Concord, Vermont.

Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) manages Vermont's electric transmission system, which includes, 738 miles of transmission lines, 13,000 acres of rights-of-way, 55 substations, switching stations and terminal facilities, interconnection facilities with Hydro-Quebec, as well as fiber optic communication networks that both control the electric system and provide the backbone for high-speed data internet access. VELCO was formed by the state's utilities in 1956 as the nation's first statewide, "transmission only" public utility.

Vandals reportedly used a shotgun to shoot the glass insulating discs which are spaced along the transmission lines and are designed to keep the lines safe from shorting out.  In all, 167 out of over 400 insulating discs were destroyed.  As a result, VELCO depowered the line until the discs could be replaced, which took from last Friday until last Sunday.  The repair itself cost about $250,000, but the biggest cost arose when regional grid operator ISO New England was forced to turn to the spot market to replace the electricity normally imported over the line from Quebec while the line was down.  The cost of that replacement power was reportedly over $1 million per day.

The incident is now the subject of a federal investigation.  Laws enacted after the widespread eastern blackout in 2003 and the September 11 terrorist attacks have increased the penalties for disrupting electric transmission and other infrastructure.  The insulating disc shooting may be treated as a "terrorist act" under federal law.

Transmission lines provide value to society, but are typically expensive and are often located in remote areas.  Hunting often occurs along or near transmission lines; just this year, VELCO won the National Wild Turkey Federation's Energy for Wildlife award for the company’s ongoing commitment to develop and improve wildlife habitat along its rights-of-way.  The extent of the damage to the insulating discs makes the shooting appear to be intentional, and thus more than a "hunting accident".  How will the incident affect transmission line owners' policies about public access to areas near lines?  How can transmission lines be better protected against vandalism?

Presidential permits for cross-border energy facilities

Presidential permits for the import and export of energy resources across the United States' borders are critical to the development of cross-border energy facilities.

Millions of dollars of energy resources flow across the United States' borders every day.  Trade in energy resources with Canada and Mexico accounts for the bulk of these transactions.  Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the United States, providing about 20% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas imports according to the U.S. State Department.  Canada and the United States share an integrated electricity grid and provide all of each other's electricity imports.  Today and tomorrow, members and guests of the New England - Canada Business Council are meeting in Boston to discuss this close relationship.

Facilities spanning the border -- whether pipelines for oil or natural gas or transmission lines for electricity -- can only be built and operated once a federal approval called a "presidential permit" has been obtained.  Since a 1968 Executive Order, presidential permits have been issued by the State Department.  Presidential permits cover not only the facilities themselves, but also the commodities (oil, gas, electricity) transmitted over those facilities.

For example, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas will require a presidential permit.  In today's news, President Obama is reported as saying that he will be the one to make the final decision on whether TransCanada will obtain its permit.

November 22, 2010 - Champlain Hudson Power Express

A recurring theme this year is that Hydro-Quebec has a large amount of hydroelectricity that it would like to sell us.  In order to sell Canadian hydro on the scale HQ envisions, as an engineering fact more transmission lines need to be built.  Of these, what is now called the Northern Pass transmission project - effectively a high-voltage DC line capable of carrying 1,200 MW of steady imports into the US - has received a lot of attention.  This imported power would be primarily generated by HQ's extensive network of hydroelectric facilities -- with an installed capacity and available supply of over 42,000 MW.

Another similar HQ-inspired transmission project is proposed just west of New England: the Champlain Hudson Power Express, a 300-320 kV DC line, consisting of two 5-inch cables to be buried at a depth of 3 feet.  One unique aspect of this HVDC project is that it will be entirely underwater and underground, buried three feet into the substrate.

The proposed route interconnects with a proposed $400 million line project in Quebec.  (The Canadian side will be developed by TransÉnergie, which is Hydro-Québec's transmission business.)  The route runs from the Richelieu River in Quebec, south through Lake Champlain.  Then, to avoid stirring up PCB-contaminated sediment in the Hudson River, the route leaves the water and runs under railroad right of ways.   The line will be developed by a private developer (called Transmission Developers, Inc.) supported by the Blackstone Group. Users of the line (primarily utilities using the line to transmit power, or large industrial users who buy their own power) will pay for it. The line developer says its analyses show New York ratepayers will save $8.1 billion on their electricity bills between 2015 and 2024, by providing less expensive Canadian renewable power, which will force older and less economic domestic generating units offline.

Will these lines be built as proposed?  What will their effects be on power prices in the U.S.?  What effects will the imports have on the development of renewable generation in New England?  The answers to these questions remain to be seen.  With its large surplus of generation over domestic load, we can be sure that Hydro-Quebec will remain open to selling us power for the foreseeable future -- but the cost of that power, in both cents per kilowatt-hour and in terms of societal impacts, may be hard to calculate.