FERC workshop on abandoned mine pumped storage

Federal hydropower regulators have scheduled a workshop to explore potential opportunities for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites, as required by the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.

Enacted by Congress and signed by President Trump in October 2018, the Act amends several portions of the Federal Power Act which govern how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues preliminary permits, hydropower licenses, and approvals for qualifying conduit hydropower facilities. Among other requirements, the Act directed the Commission to issue a rule establishing an expedited process for issuing and amending licenses for closed-loop pumped storage projects under this section.

The Act also includes provisions designed to facilitate exploration of the use of abandoned mine sites for pumped storage projects. Section 3004 of the Act requires the Commission to hold a workshop within 6 months to explore potential opportunities for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites, and issue guidance within one year to assist applicants for licenses or preliminary permits for closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites. In November 2018, the Commission docketed its action on Closed-loop Pumped Storage Projects at Abandoned Mines Guidance as Docket No. AD19-8-000 and established a schedule for rulemaking, public comment, and issuance of guidance.

The Commission has now issued a Notice of Workshop in the abandoned mine pumped storage docket, scheduled for April 4, 2019. The notice states that the workshop will involve roundtable discussions by panelists, moderated by Commission staff. The agenda for the workshop includes discussion of how to identify sites for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mines, as well as the benefits and challenges associated with the use of abandoned mines for pumped storage. The agenda also includes time for soliciting feedback from the workshop panel and other participants on what types of information would be most helpful to include in the guidance mandated by the Act.

NECPUC 2018 energy symposium

New England utility regulators have gathered in Maine for the 71st annual symposium of the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners.

NECPUC is a non-profit corporation which provides regional regulatory assistance on matters of common concern to public utilities commissions of the six New England states. Its board of directors is composed of public utilities commissioners from the six New England states. NECPUC meets regularly throughout the year and sponsors an annual symposium on regulatory issues.

NECPUC holds its 71st annual symposium in Cape Neddick, Maine, from May 20-23, 2018. The agenda for the 2018 NECPUC event includes programs focused on topics affecting the New England utility landscape. For the energy sector, these include a plenary session on wholesale markets and how consumers are impacted by "reliability-centric market challenges," as well as a panel on advancing electric vehicle infrastructure in New England. Another set of panels focuses on how to analyze, regulate, and manage risks of high-impact, low-frequency events like cybersecurity attacks or extreme weather. Other panels cover water, telecommunications, and natural gas topics.

Speakers scheduled to appear include Maine Governor Paul LePage and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Robert Powelson, as well as commissioners from numerous state public utilities commissions.

Acadia proposes parking reservation system

Acadia National Park in coastal Maine has released a draft planning document presenting possible actions to address increasing visitor vehicle traffic. The park's Draft Transportation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement proposes to adopt a timed-entry reservation system for some parking lots and roads in the park. The issue raises questions about infrastructure in national parks, and how to balance competing interests in resource management.

A coastal scene near Acadia National Park.

According to the National Park Service, annual visitation to Acadia National park grew by 58% between 2006 and 2016, exceeding 3 million visits per year. Most of these visits occur from June to October. But while visitor traffic has increased, some park infrastructure hasn't kept up with demand. For example, the Park Service has said that parking spaces in many areas are insufficient to meet visitor needs, and that increased traffic volumes and speeds have created safety issues, resource protection concerns, and adverse impacts to visitor enjoyment.

To address these issues, the National Park Service has proposed changes to how it manages Acadia National Park. On April 26, 2018, Acadia National Park posted its Draft Transportation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It identifies a preferred alternative (labeled "Alternative C" in the report) and proposed action focused on management of certain corridors within the park .

Alternative C would start by establishing a timed-entry reservation system for the Ocean Drive corridor, Cadillac Summit Road, and the Jordan Pond House North Lot during peak use season, with an adaptive management strategy that could lead to an expansion of the area within which reservations would be required. Alternative C also includes an eventual elimination of right-lane parking along the Park Loop Road, plus changes to some parking lots, among other items.

Beyond the corridor management plan presented as Alternative C, the Draft Transportation Plan also considers alternatives including taking no action, a site-specific management approach, and systemwide management of the Park Loop Road.

The National Park Service has invited public comments on Acadia's Draft Transportation Plan and EIS until June 26. The agency will hold public meetings and information sessions in the area, as well as a virtual online session.

FERC acts on 2017 tax cuts

Federal utility regulators have taken a portfolio of actions in response to recent changes to U.S. tax law which reduced the tax rates applicable to many electric utilities and pipeline companies. Some rates for use of infrastructure will be reduced automatically, while regulators prompted others to explain why they should not be reduced to reflect the tax law changes. At the same time, regulators have opened an inquiry and proposed a rulemaking to address further aspects of the 2017 federal tax law change.

Late last year, Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. That law amended U.S. tax law in a variety of ways. Among other things, the 2017 tax law changes reduced the federal corporate income tax rate from a maximum 35 percent to a flat 21 percent rate, effective January 1, 2018.

Many electric utilities and natural gas and oil pipeline companies stand to benefit from this tax reduction in the form of reduced income tax expense going forward, as well as a reduction in accumulated deferred income taxes on the books of rate-regulated companies. Where tax expense decreases, so does the cost of service.

Rates for use of some federally regulated energy infrastructure are set based on cost of service. On March 15, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission took a series of actions to address the effect of the tax law changes on its regulated industries including electric transmission companies, interstate natural gas pipelines, and oil pipelines. According to the Commission, its actions “recognize the specific regulatory and operating parameters that must be addressed differently for each of the industries it regulates.”

Transmission rates for most FERC-regulated utilities automatically adjust with changes in the tax rates based on a formula whose inputs are updated annually or on some other regular cycle. For these utilities, a reduction in corporate income tax means a reduction in rates, although the ratemaking process means there can be a lag in time before rate reductions take effect.

But in some cases, utility tariffs provide for rates are either stated as a fixed number, or the formula includes a fixed tax rate. The Commission identified 48 companies whose transmission tariffs specifically reference tax rates of 35 percent. In a pair of show-cause orders issued under the Federal Power Act -- one for utilities with stated rates, and one for utilities with formula rates referencing 35 percent -- the Commission directed these companies to propose revisions to their transmission rates or show why they should not do so. It also issued two waivers allowing certain utilities mid-year rate adjustments to reflect the new tax law.

Interstate natural gas pipelines typically have stated rates for their services. These rates are approved by the Commission in a rate proceeding under Natural Gas Act sections 4 or 5 and remain in effect until changed in a subsequent section 4 or 5 proceeding. To revise its practices with respect to natural gas pipelines, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would allow it determine which pipelines under the Natural Gas Act may be collecting unjust and unreasonable rates in light of the corporate tax reduction and the Commission’s recently revised policies on income tax allowance. Under the rule proposed by the Commission, interstate pipelines would need to file a one-time report called “FERC Form No. 501-G” describing the rate effect of these changes. In addition to filing the one-time report, each pipeline would have four options: a pro rata rate reduction, a rate settlement or case, an explanation why no rate change is needed, or merely filing the FERC report and letting the Commission decide if further action is required.

While cost-of-service ratemaking typically applies to public utilities and interstate natural gas pipelines, most oil pipelines set their rates using indexing. With respect to oil pipelines regulated by the FERC, the Commission said it will address tax changes in the 2020 five-year review of the oil pipeline index level.

Concurrently, the Commission opened an inquiry into the effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on all jurisdictional rates, including whether the Commission should address certain changes relating to accumulated deferred income taxes and bonus depreciation. In a presentation to the Commission, staff described this Notice of Inquiry as "a vehicle to help the Commission build a record to determine whether additional action is needed."

In a separate policy statement and order issued on March 15, the Commission revised its policies to disallow income tax allowance cost recovery in MLP pipeline rates.

US intelligence threat assessment on cyber, energy, infrastructure risks

The U.S. intelligence community has released an unclassified report presenting its assessment of the global context and how threats could affect U.S. actions. The latest Worldwide Threat Assessment finds increasing risk of cyber attacks and threats to U.S. infrastructure, as well as impacts from climate change.

The 28-page report released February 13, 2018, Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, describes a variety of global and regional threats.

While a disclaimer notes that the order of topics addressed does not necessarily imply the relative importance or magnitude of threats covered in the report, the first category of global threat addressed is cyber threats. According to the assessment, "The potential for surprise in the cyber realm will increase in the next year and beyond as billions more digital devices are connected — with relatively little built-in security — and both nation states and malign actors become more emboldened and better equipped in the use of increasingly widespread cyber toolkits. The risk is growing that some adversaries will conduct cyber attacks — such as data deletion or localized and temporary disruptions of critical infrastructure — against the United States in a crisis short of war. "

Illustrating this threat, the report notes that state-sponsored cyber attacks against Ukraine and Saudi Arabia in 2016 and 2017 targeted multiple sectors across critical infrastructure, government, and commercial networks, including disruption of Ukrainian energy-distribution networks. The report projects that in the next year, "Russian intelligence and security services will continue to probe US and allied critical infrastructures."

The report also notes the complex global foreign intelligence threat environment facing the U.S. in 2018. While it identifies penetrating the US national decisionmaking apparatus and intelligence community as primary objectives for numerous foreign intelligence entities, the report notes that "the targeting of national security information and proprietary information from US companies and research institutions involved with defense, energy, finance, dual-use technology, and other areas will remain a persistent threat to US interests."

The report cites U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that 2018 West Texas Intermediate and Brent prices will average $58 and $62 per barrel, respectively, compared to $98 and $109 in 2013. Noting that oil prices have remained low since 2013, the report observes that oil-exporting countries continue to suffer from low prices, and that "their economic woes are likely to continue, with broader negative implications. Subdued economic growth, combined with sharp increases in North American oil and gas production, probably will continue putting downward pressure on global energy prices, harming oil-exporting economies." The report describes impacts of low oil prices on countries including Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil exporters, Angola, Nigeria, Russia.

The report also notes the existence and impacts of climate change. It observes, "Challenges from urbanization and migration will persist, while the effects of air pollution, inadequate water, and climate change on human health and livelihood will become more noticeable. Domestic policy responses to such issues will become more difficult — especially for democracies — as publics become less trusting of authoritative information sources."

According to the assessment, "The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent — and possibly upheaval — through 2018." It notes that the "past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization , and the past few years have been the warmest years on record." It cites extreme weather events in a warmer world as having the potential for greater impacts in the future, as well as increased challenges to government prompted by environmental concerns or water scarcity. The report also notes that nearly half the world's international river basins are exposed to gaps in the agreements governing water supply and dam development, exacerbating this concern.

FERC performance report and budget request

A U.S. energy regulatory agency has published a report detailing its fiscal year 2017 performance and requesting an appropriation of $369,9000,000 in funds from Congress for fiscal year 2019, to be offset by fees on regulated industries.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC is an independent regulatory agency, housed within the U.S. Department of Energy. The Commission has statutory jurisdiction over many aspects of the nation's wholesale electricity, natural gas, hydropower, and oil pipeline sectors. 

FERC's FY 2019 Congressional Performance Budget Request / FY 2017 Annual Performance Report describes the Commission's mission assisting consumers in obtaining reliable, efficient, and sustainable energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means. It recites the Commission's 3 goals: ensuring just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions; promoting safe, reliable, secure and efficient infrastructure; and mission support through organizational excellence.

The Commission recovers the full cost of its operations through annual charges and filing fees assessed on the industries it regulates as authorized by the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, which requires it to “assess and collect fees and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal to all of the costs incurred . . . in that fiscal year.” This revenue offsets the Commission's appropriation, resulting in a net appropriation of zero.

The report projects a FY 2019 appropriation of $369,900,000 "for necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of Energy Organization Act." This represents an increase of $2,300,000, or about 0.6%, over the Commission's FY 2018 budget request. The report describes its activity as requiring 1,465 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to execute its mission in FY 2019.

Brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev sets global renewable electricity goal by 2025

World’s largest brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev SA – parent to brands including Budweiser, Corona, Rolling Rock, Michelob, and Stella Artois – has committed to sourcing its electricity entirely from renewable sources by 2025.  The move would make AB InBev the largest corporate direct purchaser of renewable electricity in the global consumer goods sector.

AB InBev makes 30% of the world’s beer, operating breweries in 50 countries. Collectively, these facilities consume 6 terawatt-hours of electricity a year, of which 7% is currently renewable-sourced.  According to a March 28 press release, changing to 100% renewable electricity will reduce the company's carbon footprint by 30%, an estimated reduction of about 2 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

While many multinational companies “invest” in renewables by buying renewable energy credits or certificates known as "RECs", AB InBev’s plan involves no REC-buying. The company reportedly intends to obtain 75 to 85 percent of its electricity through direct power purchases under a power purchase agreement or similar commercial arrangement, with remaining 15 to 25 percent coming from on-site distributed generation installations at its facilities, like solar panels. The company has committed to producing the energy in the country in which it is to be consumed.

Sourcing renewable energy is relatively easier in some countries, like Mexico. AB InBev announced that its largest facility, a Grupo Modelo brewery, had signed contracts to get all its electricity from wind power, including 220 MW to be built by Iberdrola SA in Puebla. Those new wind projects alone, destined to supply the brewery, represent a 5% increase to Mexico's renewable energy capacity. But in other countries, most notably in Africa, a lack of markets and infrastructure to connect industrial consumers with renewable energy may prove challenging. Also worth noting is that the company's commitment relates to electricity, and not directly to fuels or heat required for beer production and distribution. 

Nevertheless, Anheuser-Busch InBev's commitment to sourcing 100% renewable electricity by 2025 across its global portfolio of facilities represents another data point in the trend of corporate direct investment in renewable energy.  Corporations including Apple, Google, and Amazon have made a variety of commitments relating to renewable electricity, citing benefits ranging from environmental sustainability to locking in power pricing.

Substation security and the Garkane shooting

As the U.S. strengthens protections for its electricity grid, much of the discussion focuses on cybersecurity -- but physical security is also important, as shown by an attack on a Utah utility's substation.  On September 25, an unknown gunman fired at least 3 shots into a distribution system substation, damaging a transformer and causing power outages.  The incident may place renewed pressure on utilities to secure their infrastructure against vandalism and terrorism.

As reported by the Deseret News, the damage occurred at a substation owned by Garkane Energy Cooperative.  An assailant reportedly shot the main transformer's oil-cooled radiator system, causing the transformer to overheat and fail.  About 13,000 customers lost power across most of Kane and Garfield counties.  A spokesman for the cooperative said damage to the transformer could reach $1 million; repairs could take 6 to 12 months.  The utility has offered an unusually high reward -- $50,000 -- for information leading to the arrest of the shooter.

This is not the first time someone has used firearms to damage utility infrastructure.  Some incidents, such as the 2012 shotgunning of 167 insulating discs on Vermont's transmission system, may be considered vandalism.  Others, like the 2013 sniper shooting of a PG&E substation in San Jose, California, are considered terrorism.  That attack led the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to implement new physical security protections for utility infrastructure known as CIP-014, through its Order No. 802.

The Garkane incident remains under investigation.  More broadly, it may strengthen calls for further hardening of the utility system against physical attack.  Meanwhile, efforts continue to strengthen cybersecurity protections for the grid.

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.

FERC and EPA's Clean Power Plan

Following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2014 proposal to regulate carbon emissions from electric power plants and other major sources, federal energy regulators have scheduled a series of public technical conferences on how the Clean Power Plan may affect electric reliability, wholesale electric markets and operations, and energy infrastructure.

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the Clean Power Plan, its proposed rule under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions from the nation's power plants.  Designed to reduce carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, EPA's proposal would impose limits on each state's rate of carbon emissions per megawatt-hour of electric energy generated.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, monitors energy markets, and protects the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system.  Acting out of concern over the possible impacts of the EPA Clean Power Plan on its regulated sector, on December 9, 2014, the Commission scheduled a series of technical conferences to develop public comment on these issues.

First, the Commission will hold a National Overview technical conference on February 19, 2015, at its Washington, DC headquarters.  Earlier this month, the Commission issued a supplemental notice describing the agenda for the National Overview.  After an introduction by EPA, the Commission expects to discuss:

• Electric reliability considerations: How will the Clean Power Plan affect electric reliability?  How can the U.S. sustain reliability as states and regions develop their plans to comply with the proposed carbon rule?  How could state, regional, and federal plans for compliance affect grid operations?  What tools are available to identify potential reliability impacts?  How can reliability planning processes and compliance planning efforts  coordinated to address potential issues?  What is the Commission's role in this area?
• Identifying and addressing infrastructure needs: What potential infrastructure needs may arise from various state or regional compliance approaches?  How can any infrastructure needs met in a timely manner in order to ensure system reliability?  How can relevant planning entities, industry, and states coordinate reliability and infrastructure planning and siting processes with state and/or regional environmental compliance efforts to ensure the adequate and timely development of new infrastructure?  Are additional mechanisms needed to ensure timely development of new infrastructure? Are adaptations to current Commission policies needed to facilitate the infrastructure needed for compliance with the proposed Clean Power Plan?
• Potential implications for Commission-jurisdictional markets:  How could potential compliance approaches to the proposed Clean Power Plan impact Commission-jurisdictional electric and natural gas markets?  What aspects, if any, of the wholesale and interstate markets would facilitate implementation of state or regional compliance plans?  What tools are available to address market issues as they arise?  What opportunities are available to coordinate compliance approaches with Commission-jurisdictional markets to meet the requirements of the proposed Clean Power Plan rule?

Following the National Overview, the Commission has scheduled three regional conferences in February and March 2015.

FERC plans conferences on EPA carbon rule impacts

If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon regulations for power plants are adopted, how will state and regional efforts to comply with the rule impact the electric power grid?  If states need new infrastructure like electric transmission lines or natural gas pipelines to comply with the EPA rule, what can be done to reduce regulatory barriers to new infrastructure development?

A fossil fuel-fired power plant near New York, NY.

The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan rule would require states to meet customized standards for how much carbon dioxide their electric power sector emits per unit of useful energy.  As envisioned by EPA, each state can choose its own path to meeting these standards by combining elements from a menu of four "building blocks": better coal plant efficiency, increased utilization of natural gas plants, increased renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency.

The implications of different approaches to complying with the proposed rule will be the focus of an upcoming series of technical conferences to be held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  According to the Commission's public notice, state, regional and/or federal plans for compliance with the proposed Clean Power Plan may impact Commission-jurisdictional markets, grid operations, and infrastructure.  The series of technical conferences is designed to provide forums for identifying issues and solutions.  The Commission also plans to provide an opportunity to discuss how compliance scenarios may impact existing infrastructure and drive the need for additional infrastructure, especially new electric transmission and natural gas pipeline facilities, and whether there are regulatory barriers that need to be addressed, and by whom, to ensure the timely development of those facilities.

The conferences will begin with a Commission-led National Overview session at FERC headquarters on February 19, 2015.  The National Overview will address whether regulators and industry have the appropriate tools to identify any reliability or market issues that may arise, potential strategies for compliance with the EPA regulations and coordination with FERC-jurisdictional wholesale and interstate markets, and how to coordinate reliability and infrastructure planning processes with state and/or regional environmental compliance efforts to ensure the adequate development of new infrastructure and to manage any potential reliability and operational impacts of proposed compliance plans. The Commission will offer a live webcast of the National Overview, which will be archived for three months.

Following the National Overview technical conference, the Commission will hold three regional technical conferences, on dates to be announced, in Washington, DC, St. Louis, MO, and Denver, CO.  Each regional event will include discussion of the specific potential impacts to regional reliability, power system operations and generator dispatch, and needed infrastructure upgrades.

Will the EPA's Clean Power Plan be finalized and take effect?  If so, when -- and in what form?  Federal carbon emission limits are as yet untested in the U.S., and other innovative regulatory efforts have met with years or even decades of delay before taking effect.  At the same time, the prospect of federal carbon rules affecting the electric power sector spurs energy regulators to take a serious look at potential impacts of the carbon rules, and to begin planning for their possible future effectiveness.

Maine standard offer prices jump up 23%

The upward trend in wholesale natural gas and electricity prices in New England will begin to hit retail consumers later this summer, based on the bids accepted today by the Maine Public Utilities Commission for standard offer electricity service.

Following Maine’s deregulation of the electric power industry, transmission and distribution utilities no longer sell electricity but merely provide wires enabling the delivery of power. For their energy needs, customers may choose among licensed competitive electricity providers, or may receive so-called “standard offer service” by default. Most residential consumers receive standard offer service, while more than half of the load of medium and large commercial and industrial customers is served by customer-selected competitive providers.

The providers of standard offer service, and the prices customers pay for standard offer service, are selected by the Maine Public Utilities Commission through a competitive process. In deliberations this afternoon, the Commission established new prices for standard offer electricity supply service for medium commercial and industrial customers of Maine’s two largest utilities, Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro Electric Co. Over a six-month term starting on September 1, 2013, Central Maine Power’s medium commercial and industrial customers taking standard offer service will pay an average price of 7.5 cents/kWh. Bangor Hydro customers will pay 7.45 cents/kWh. These new prices are over 23% higher than current standard offer prices for these customers, and are between 17% and 19% higher compared to last year’s standard offer pricing.

Why have these prices gone up? One explanation is that suppliers are pricing the recent upward trend in regional wholesale natural gas and electricity prices into their retail bids. Wholesale electricity pricing in New England is generally set by the price of natural gas. Despite the availability of low-cost natural gas throughout most of the country, peak demands for natural gas in New England for heating and for electric power generation exceed the capability of the natural gas pipeline network to deliver gas into the region. As a result, the wholesale price of natural gas – and electricity – spikes as demand for gas increases.  Based on last winter's experience with this phenomenon, retail electricity suppliers are expecting similar high wholesale prices this winter, and are increasing their retail rate bids accordingly.

One solution that could keep downward pressure on the cost of natural gas and electricity is expanded pipeline infrastructure to enable a balance between supply and demand for natural gas deliveries into New England. New England states are working to promote this solution, which could save consumers over $1 billion per year. Until then, the likelihood is for continued upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices, and corresponding upward jumps in the retail price consumers pay for electricity as evidenced by the new standard offer prices.

FERC report shows investment in natural gas

This week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its monthly energy infrastructure update covering May 2013.  The report details highlights in expansions of energy assets, ranging from natural gas pipelines to electric generation and transmission facilities.  It provides a monthly snapshot of recent activity, and can be used to spot trends in domestic energy development.  The current report illustrates increased investment in natural gas-related infrastructure, ranging from proposed new liquefied natural gas export terminals to newly installed natural gas-fired power plants.

The iconic U.S Capitol dome, where policies are made that shape energy investment.

Natural gas exports poised for growth.  Last month two facilities to liquefy natural gas for export advanced through the FERC regulatory process:

• Jordan Cove Energy requested authorization to construct and operate four liquefaction trains and storage facilities at a proposed export terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon.  If authorized and built, the project could export up to 900 MMcf per day of liquefied natural gas (LNG).  This gas would likely be destined for Asian markets.
• Golden Pass Products proposed a larger project in Texas.  Along with Golden Pass Pipeline, Golden Pass Products commenced the FERC prefiling process to construct and operate a 2,100 MMcf per day liquefaction facility for export at an existing import terminal located in Sabine Pass, Texas.  The Golden Pass project also includes proposed modification of an existing pipeline system to enable 2,500 MMcf per day of bidirectional capacity to the proposed export terminal.

These projects demonstrate increased interest in exporting natural gas to overseas markets.  The boom in domestic shale gas production has led to low natural gas prices in the U.S.  Domestic pricing is roughly one-third of the price that exporters can get by sending LNG to Europe or Asia.  Whether and to what extent the U.S. will allow exports remains to be seen, but in the interim, developers are scrambling to secure permits for export. 

New electric generation, mostly fueled by natural gas.  Last month a total of 33 new electric generation units came online.  Nearly three-quarters of the newly installed capacity is fueled by natural gas, adding 2,529 MW of new natural gas-fired electric generating capacity.  The new gas projects vary widely in scope:

• The largest, Mitsubishi Corporation’s 850 MW CPV Sentinel Energy Expansion in Riverside County, consists of eight 106.25 MW units.  Mitsubishi’s generation is sold to Southern California Edison under a long-term contract.
• In the middle, Procter & Gamble Company developed a 64 MW natural gas fired project to produce power for its paper products manufacturing facility in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania.
• At the opposite end of the scale, two landfill gas-fired projects came online in New York.  Wehran Energy Corp.’s 4.5 MW Brookhaven facility consists of three 1.5 MW Caterpillar Inc. generators.  The Brookhaven project was also joined by a 1.6 MW expansion of Waste Management Inc.’s Oneida-Herkimer project.

These projects illustrate the diversity of new natural gas fired projects being developed this spring.  The abundance of low-cost natural gas drives interest in the utility scale gas projects, while a desire to capture landfill-produced methane and put it to use as biogas supports the smaller projects.  As a result, natural gas’s share of total installed operating generating capacity grew slightly to 42.56%.  Despite a resurgence of coal as a fuel for electric generation, coal remains in second place in the installed capacity race, representing 28.9% of total U.S. installed capacity.

While each monthly energy infrastructure update represents only one data point, in the aggregate, they paint a picture of the direction of U.S. energy infrastructure development.  Natural gas is squarely in the center of this picture.  Based on consensus projections that natural gaswill remain the most cost effective fuel for decades to come, increased expansion of natural related infrastructure is likely to continue for some time.

What the 2013 State of the Union said about energy

Tonight President Obama delivered the 2013 State of the Union address.  Energy figured heavily in his remarks, with emphasis on energy efficiency, natural gas production, and renewable energy.  His newly proposed policies, some of which require congressional approval, aim to boost the economy while protecting the environment.  Here's a look at what he said, relying on the text released online by the New York Times as text as prepared for delivery, as provided by the White House.

The State of the Union is a key opportunity for a president to speak his mind to the public and to Congress.  Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution directs the president to "from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."  Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have delivered oral addresses to Congress.

President Obama's 2013 State of the Union address presented a number of energy issues and policies.  He criticized federal budget sequestration orders as disrupting priority programs including the energy sector:

In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as “the sequester,” are a really bad idea.

Energy security and sovereignty also figured prominently.  He cited advances in transportation fuel economy, renewable energy, natural gas, and reductions in carbon emissions:

After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.

Climate change also returned as a key area of focus, as it had in President Obama's second inaugural speech last month:

But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.

To address climate change, President Obama asked Congress to develop a market-based solution, but vowed to take executive action if necessary:

The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

Clean energy continues to draw attention, while the development of economically-recoverable natural gas supplies is the latest energy revolution:

Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.

In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.

President Obama also promoted energy efficiency, from getting the transportation sector off oil to improving residential, business and industrial energy efficiency.  He proposed to create a trust funded by oil and gas leases and royalties to help fund some of these shifts:

Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long. I’m also issuing a new goal for America: let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years. The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen.

Infrastructure investment was another point, including the electric power grid and pipeline networks:

America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair. Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire: a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and internet; high-tech schools and self-healing power grids. The CEO of Siemens America – a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina – has said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they’ll bring even more jobs. And I know that you want these job-creating projects in your districts. I’ve seen you all at the ribbon-cuttings.

Tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children. Let’s prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America. And let’s start right away.

The 2013 State of the Union address suggests continued growth in U.S. sectors such as energy efficiency, alternative transportation fuels, renewable energy, and infrastructure development and maintenance.  Carbon emissions may also be examined, with a national market-based carbon cap and trade program possible such as now exists in California and the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative member states.  How Congress and the public react to these remarks remains to be seen, as does how and to what extent President Obama's proposed policy shifts are implemented.

June 9, 2010 update: Maine election results, including off-shore wind bond

Maine just held elections. Voters weighed in on gubernatorial candidates (Democrats choosing Libby Mitchell, and Republicans Paul LePage), a citizens' veto of a tax reform law enacted last session, and a series of bond measures, all of which appear to have passed.

One of these bond measures touches directly on energy policy.  Question 2 addressed offshore wind energy as well as energy efficiency and infrastructure across the state's public higher education systems.

Question 2 (Bond Issue):

"Do you favor a $26,500,000 bond issue that will create jobs through investment in an off-shore wind energy demonstration site and related manufacturing to advance Maine’s energy independence from imported foreign oil, that will leverage $24,500,000 in federal and other funds and for energy improvements at campuses of the University of Maine System, Maine Community College System and Maine Maritime Academy in order to make facilities more efficient and less costly to operate?”

The Maine Secretary of State's Citizen's Guide to the Referendum Election (DOC) provides more detail on the allocation. The bond package includes:

• $11 million for "research, development and product innovation associated with developing one or more ocean wind energy demonstration sites", plus "funding for robotics equipment to accelerate wind energy components manufacturing in the State"
•  $9.5 million for energy and infrastructure upgrades at all University of Maine System campuses
• $5 million for energy and infrastructure upgrades at all Maine Community College System campuses
• $1 million for energy and infrastructure upgrades at Maine Maritime Academy

 Of these provisions, perhaps the Maine Marine Wind Energy Demonstration Site Fund is most interesting. The Fund was established by Chapter 414, Part D, Public Laws of 2009, and was amended by Chapter 645, Part C, Public Laws of 2009. The Legislature established the Fund to "provide the basic investment necessary to obtain matching funds and competitive grants and other funding from federal, state and private sources for research, development and product innovation associated with developing one or more ocean wind energy demonstration sites."

The Fund is designed to funnel money into research by the University of Maine. In fact, the definition of "research and development" enacted in Section H-1(2)(B) of the Public Law limits it to "applied engineering and scientific research and related commercial development conducted by the University of Maine", although partnerships are allowed. The Fund is administered by the University itself, on behalf of the trustees. Funds could be used to conduct siting studies for offshore wind sites, and to design, develop prototypes for, and test offshore structures, composites and components that could be manufactured in Maine.

As often seems needed in pitching a bond proposal, this one is designed to leverage matching dollars. The Secretary of State reported that it is anticipated that funds from this portion of the bond proceeds would leverage $24,500,000 in additional funds from other sources.

What does it cost? Total estimated life time cost is $33,058,750 representing $26,500,000 in principal and $6,558,750 in interest (assuming interest at 4.5% over 10 years).

Voters approved Question 2 by a 59/41 margin. 133,763 votes were cast in favor of the bond package, with only 94,016 against.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Maine Marine Wind Energy Demonstration Site Fund that we have all agreed to fund!