FERC Order 2222 opens wholesale markets to distributed energy resource aggregators

U.S. electric utility regulators have issued an order requiring the nation's regional organized wholesale electric markets to allow participation by portfolios of solar projects and other distributed energy resources. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order 2222 finds that existing regional electricity market rules are unjust and unreasonable in light of barriers that they present to the participation of DER aggregations in these markets, and requires regional grid operators to revise their tariffs to accomodate distributed energy resource aggregators. While further process and uncertainty remain ahead, FERC Order 2222 should facilitate the development of distributed energy resources by removing barriers to electricity market participation.

As defined by the FERC, distributed energy resources (DER) encompass a variety of types of technology when installed on the distribution system, a distribution subsystem or behind a customer meter. Typically less than 10,000 kilowatts in capacity for each installation, DER technologies include solar photovoltaic systems and other distributed generation or intermittent generation, electric storage, electric vehicles and their charging equipment, thermal storage, and other consumer-side measures like demand response and energy efficiency. The U.S. is experiencing significant growth in the number and size of DERs installed on the system, due to factors including federal tax incentives and state incentives, as well as considerations of reliability and utility rate design.

Through Order 2222, issued on September 17, 2020, FERC has now found "that existing RTO/ISO market rules are unjust and unreasonable in light of barriers that they present to the participation of distributed energy resource aggregations in the RTO/ISO markets, which reduce competition and fail to ensure just and reasonable rates." As a result, the Commission adopted a final rule requiring regional transmission organizations and other organized wholesale market operators to establish DER aggregators as a type of market participant, to allow them to register their DERs under one or more participation models that accommodate the physical and operational characteristics of those resources and to participate in the regional organized wholesale capacity, energy and ancillary services markets. Order 2222 allows DERs to aggregate together to satisfy minimum size and performance requirements that they might not meet individually.

The boundaries between federal and state jurisdiction over DERs arise as a matter of federal law, and have occasionally been tested -- most recently in connection with FERC Order 841, governing storage. As noted by the Commission, its Order 2222 final rule "builds off the DC Circuit Court’s recent ruling on Order No. 841, in which the court affirmed the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction over the regional wholesale power markets and the criteria for participation in those markets." Order 2222 prohibits state regulators from broadly excluding DERs from participating in regional markets, but gives state retail regulatory authorities some power by creating a "small utility opt-in", as well as respecting states regulators’ current ability to prohibit aggregators from bidding retail customers’ demand response into regional markets. Regarding interconnection, Order 222 explains that "state and local authorities remain responsible for the interconnection of individual DERs for the purpose of participating in wholesale markets through a DER aggregation."

The final rule largely tracks a 2016 proposed rule developed by FERC staff, with some changes. The regulator appears excited to take this step. According to a fact sheet issued by the Commission under the title, "FERC Order No. 2222: A New Day for Distributed Energy Resources", Order 2222 "will help usher in the electric grid of the future and promote competition in electric markets by removing the barriers preventing distributed energy resources (DERs) from competing on a level playing field in the organized capacity, energy and ancillary services markets run by regional grid operators."

Order 2222's final rule will take effect 90 days after its publication in the Federal Register. Grid operators will then have 270 days within which they must submit to FERC a compliance filing and a plan for timely implementation of the final rule. While Order 2222 and federal laws place some constraints on what the grid operators may propose, each regional transmission organization or independent system operator has some leeway to develop and propose solutions it views as tailored to its own markets and needs. This feature of federalism will likely result in some diversity in terms of regional designs, to be considered through regional stakeholder discussion and the Commission's regulatory processes.

2019 in review

Here's a roundup of some of the items published on this blog in 2019 that have drawn significant interest:

• The enactment of a portfolio of Maine energy legislation that significant reformed the state's electricity renewable portfolio standard, long-term contracting programs, net energy billing program, and climate policy.
• Increasing public recognition that most of Maine's greenhouse gas emissions arise from the direct combustion of fossil fuels in the transportation and heating sectors, and the need to reduce transportation- and heating-related efforts through "beneficial electrification" or other means.
• Action by the United States to withdraw from the United Nations' Paris Climate Agreement.
• A federal proposal to "reform PURPA" or amend regulations adopted in implementation of a federal law designed to encourage cogeneration and renewable power production.
• Offshore wind procurement processes in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
• Growth in deployment of electric energy storage, following federal regulators' adoption of rules and state legislatures' enactment of incentive programs.
• Federal regulation and enforcement of market manipulation and mandatory reliability standards for the bulk electric system.
• A federal appellate court ruling, Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, reshaping a common practice in hydropower licensing by holding that the states and applicants for water quality certifications cannot indefinitely stall federal time limits for state action by repeatedly withdrawing and resubmitting their applications.

Will these trends continue in 2020?

FERC approves energy storage tariffs

U.S. utility regulators have approved the first two regional implementations of a landmark 2018 order designed to remove barriers to the participation of electricity storage in wholesale markets.

In 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its Order No. 841, requiring each organized power market to revise its tariff to establish a "participation model" for electric storage resources in the capacity, energy and ancillary service markets. The rule requires each market's participation model to include market rules that recognize the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources and facilitate their participation in those markets. The Commission later affirmed the rule, through its Order No. 841-A.

Last week, the Commission issued two orders approving Order No. 841 compliance filings by Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and by PJM Interconnection. The Commission generally found that the SPP and PJM tariff revisions complied with the new rule, and largely accepted their filings. For example, the Commission found that both proposals "generally enable electric storage resources to provide all services they are capable of providing; allow electric storage resources to be compensated for those services in the same manner as other resources; and appropriately recognize the unique physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources."

However, the Commission also provided directives for further compliance filings by SPP and PJM to be made within 60 days. The Commission found that while both filed tariffs generally satisfy Order No. 841’s directive allowing electric storage resources to de-rate their capacity to meet minimum run-time requirements, neither tariff included minimum run-time requirements for resource adequacy and capacity, respectively. Because "such requirements affect rates, terms and conditions of service," the Commission initiated proceedings under section 206 of the Federal Power Act to address the specific issue of minimum run-time requirements.

In a pair of separate statements (on SPP and on PJM), Commissioner McNamee concurred with the orders insofar as they found compliance with the Commission's orders and regulations. But Commissioner McNamee said, "I write separately, however, to express my continuing concern that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority under the Federal Power Act, and should have, at the very least, provided states the opportunity to opt-out of the participation model created by the Storage Orders." Commissioner McNamee also reiterated jurisdictional concerns he had previously raised in a partial concurrence to and partial dissent from Order No. 841-A, "to the extent the Commission’s Storage Orders exercised authority over the distribution system and behind-the-meter."

Other organized wholesale market operators, such as ISO New England, Inc., are also adopting tariff revisions to comply with Order No. 841, to enhance the ability of electric storage facilities to participate in regional wholesale electricity markets.

FERC Order 841-A affirms electric storage market participation

On May 16, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order generally affirming an earlier order which established reforms to remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in certain organized wholesale markets. The Commission's Order No. 841-A denied various requests for rehearing of last year's Order No. 841.

In 2018's Order No. 841, the Commission found that existing rules for electricity markets operated by regional transmission organizations and independent system operators were unjust and unreasonable in light of barriers that they present to the participation of electric storage. Based on this finding, the Commission ordered wholesale market makers to revise their tariffs to "establish a participation model consisting of market rules that, recognizing the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources, facilitates their participation in the RTO/ISO markets." Order No. 841 required each regional organization's participation model to (1) ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources is eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable of providing in the RTO/ISO markets; (2) ensure that a resource using the participation model for electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer consistent with existing market rules that govern when a resource can set the wholesale price; (3) account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means; and (4) establish a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO/ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW. Order No. 841 also required that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price.

In Order No. 841-A, the Commission generally affirmed these findings, while clarifying a handful of relatively limited points. The ruling ends for now some of the uncertainty over the scope and applicability of Order No. 841.

As regional wholesale markets develop tariff revisions to integrate electric storage resources, there could be significant opportunities to develop and benefit from electric storage. Reports have suggested significant potential for electric storage deployment -- with one 2018 study suggesting the U.S. could be home to between 7 and 50 gigawatts of storage, if costs continue to decline and sufficient policy support is available.

New England 2019 Regional Energy Outlook describes shifts, challenges

New England's electricity system is shifting toward a "hybrid grid," according to the operator of New England's wholesale electricity markets and electric transmission system. A recent report by ISO New England, Inc. describes the electric sector's transition towards generating resources with lower carbon emissions and the resulting implications for the environment and the economy.

ISO New England is the federally-designated regional transmission organization serving New England. The grid operator recently released its 2019 Regional Energy Outlook, a document described as “one of the many ways the ISO keeps stakeholders informed about the current state of the grid, issues affecting its future, and ISO initiatives to ensure a modern, reliable power system for New England.”

In the report, ISO New England emphasizes the region’s decarbonization and shifting resource mix, noting that “carbon emissions from the grid have fallen by roughly a third... the region is on its way from having an electric grid dominated by fossil-fuel and nuclear generation to one that includes large amounts of wind and hydro generation and hundreds of thousands of small solar and storage systems spanning the six states. The states’ next step in their decarbonization journey is to transition the emissions-heavy heating and transportation sectors to low-carbon electricity.”

ISO-NE describes the way these changes are happening as “challenging reliable system operations and competitive wholesale electricity markets.” ISO says that “for the foreseeable future, the region will remain vulnerable to energy shortfalls and wholesale price volatility as more and more resources with limited-energy ‘inventories’ (natural gas generation, wind, solar, battery storage) displace resources with on-site fuel that can sustain operation for extended periods (oil, coal, nuclear, dual-fuel generation).”

ISO New England says its competitive markets weren’t designed to telegraph future energy scarcity conditions, compensate resources for fuel inventory, achieve carbon reduction goals, or specifically lead to renewable development. It notes that state-sponsored resources suppress market prices when in markets, but would lead to overbuild if outside markets. ISO advocates, “Establishing a realistic price on carbon remains a more seamless and simpler way to achieve clean-energy goals through markets without distorting competition, but this is not in the ISO’s jurisdiction. State or federal policymakers could pursue this direction but have not done so to date.” ISO notes, “Nuclear resources will prove critical to meeting both decarbonization and energy-security goals for years to come, but how they can remain financially viable is still unclear.”

ISO-NE says it is focused on 3 elements to support the transition to the “hybrid grid”: supporting the rapid transformation of the region’s electricity supply and demand mix, maintaining a robust transmission system, and ensuring energy security. 

The grid operator also noted limitations on what tools it can use to address these challenges: “Importantly, ISO New England does not have the authority to dictate investments in energy infrastructure that can help ensure that the region’s energy needs can be met in all seasons, under all conditions. Our toolkit is to create financial stimuli through the wholesale electricity markets that will drive action. Opposition or impediments to infrastructure decisions will only exacerbate the region’s energy-security constraints.”

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.

Maine considers water shortage readiness

In the midst of a regulatory inquiry into Maine water utilities' ability to prepare for and respond to water supply emergencies, agency staff have issued a preliminary recommendation intended to stimulate further discussion and comment -- which could ultimately lead to changes in how Maine regulates water utilities and water supply.

2016 brought drought to much of Maine. According to a Notice of Inquiry issued by the Maine Public Utilities Commission that year, the drought posed special challenges for some of Maine's water systems with limited sources of supply -- especially those with significant seasonal demands, antiquated infrastructure, or high levels of non-revenue water. In response, the Commission opened an inquiry to gather information that will allow it to identify problems and identify collaborative and proactive solutions. The Commission received responsive comments from about a dozen water utilities, and staff conducted additional research on the topic.

On March 5, 2018, the Commission staff issued its Preliminary Recommendation in regard to the Inquiry. The document describes its recommendations as preliminary and “intended to stimulate further discussion and comment on the issues raised in the document”. It says its intended audience “is broader than the usual participants in Commission proceedings and includes entities that may not be familiar with Commission practices and governing statutes.”

Findings in the 36-page Preliminary Recommendation include:

• Maine’s 152 water utilities responded well to the 2016 drought.
• Most of Maine's water utilities should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding water supply emergencies.
• Most Maine water utilities have the ability to adequately prepare for, and respond to, a water supply emergency.
• Water supply emergencies are not amenable to a one-size-fits-all approach because of the wide variety of potential circumstances.
• All Maine water utilities should be required to prepare some sort of Emergency Response Plan, and all that experience a water supply emergency should be required to prepare an after-action report.
• Water utilities need clearly-defined authority to respond to a water supply emergency -- ideally in the utility's Terms and Conditions.
• Various entities can provide help to a water utility that needs assistance preparing for, and responding to, a water supply emergency. Support can come from neighboring systems, membership organizations, and state agencies.
• State agencies should work cooperatively to support water utilities before, during, and after a water supply emergency.
• Effective communication before and during a water supply emergency is critical.
• Some Maine water utilities are more vulnerable to a water supply emergency and may need assistance -- especially those with a limited source of supply, aging infrastructure, high levels of non-revenue/unaccounted-for water, seasonal demands, and lack of metered service. Other challenges include a lack of resources, recalcitrant customers, and local socioeconomic factors, or excessively prioritizing low rates over critical system improvements.

Commission staff has requested written comments by March 30. It said it is considering holding between two and five workshops across Maine to solicit oral comments about the Preliminary Recommendation, after which it will draft a Final Recommendation for the Commission’s review.

Report: 50 GW US electric storage potential

A recently adopted federal regulation aimed at helping electric storage resources participate in wholesale electricity markets could unlock 7,000 megawatts of storage potential -- or up to 50,000 megawatts if all benefits can be captured through state and federal action -- according to a report by consulting firm The Brattle Group.

The study is titled, “Getting to 50 GW? The Role of FERC Order 841, RTOs, States, and Utilities in Unlocking Storage’s Potential.” Released on February 22, 2018, the report concludes that electric storage market potential could grow to 50,000 MW within the next ten years, if storage costs continue to decline and state and federal regulatory policies continue to be supportive.

The Brattle report comes one week after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's issuance of Order No. 841, a final rule aimed at removing barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in wholesale markets operated by regional transmission organization and independent system operators. The Brattle report describes Order 841 as "an important step in unlocking the value in wholesale energy, ancillary services, and capacity markets," noting the consulting firm's finding that at least half of storage's total possible value can be achieved in wholesale electricity markets.

Crucially, the Brattle study finds that fully realizing the value of electric storage will require state policy reforms similar to those at the federal level. Generally speaking, wholesale electricity sales and interstate transmission are subject to federal jurisdiction, while retail sales and local distribution are subject to state jurisdiction. This split jurisdiction means that some value streams available through battery storage can be only captured at the state level -- for example benefits from deferring or avoiding investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure by using storage as a non-transmission alternative, or customer benefits like increased reliability and engagement with power supply.

Storage can also save customers money -- as noted in the report, avoiding retail rate demand changes is one of the primary business drivers for storage deployment by U.S. commercial and industrial customers. But these values can only be fully captured through state action to remove the barriers that remain.

Some states are acting to incentivize or require energy storage investments. California set a mandate of 1,325 megawatts of storage by 2020, and Oregon and Massachusetts have also set state storage mandates.

The report also covers implications for existing storage resources, most of which are hydropower. It finds that existing storage resources can provide substantial new capabilities, if they can be operated more flexibly than today. As noted in the report, "Increasing flexibility of existing hydro can be very valuable, reducing the need for new investments." The report also suggests that optimizing operating strategies could increase storage revenues by 2 to 5 times.

FERC distributed energy resource technical report

A technical report by U.S. electricity regulatory staff assesses the potential reliability issues and likely benefits to the bulk power system resulting from an increased penetration of distributed energy resources. According to the report, increasing penetration of distributed energy resources may bring several associated reliability benefits to the bulk power system -- or could cause reliability concerns, if the resources are not properly accounted for.

Distributed energy resources, or DERs, have no single definition -- but they are generally conceived of as small, geographically dispersed electric resources, installed and operated on the distribution system at voltage levels below the typical bulk power system levels of 100kV. Historically, the term focused on generation like rooftop solar panels or on-site combined heat and power plants, but its meaning has broadened to include energy efficiency, microgrids, and even new technologies like energy storage. Distributed energy resources can be cost-effective alternatives to traditional utility infrastructure and business models.

Distributed energy resources installations have increased significantly in some regions of the United States in recent years thanks to factors including technology advances and state energy policies. In 2016, when distributed energy resources of all types accounted for about two percent of the nation's installed generation capacity, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) installations alone represented over 12 percent of new capacity additions.  At the same time, regulators and industry participants are working to integrate these resources into the grid from engineering, reliability, and system planning perspectives.

In February 2018, staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published a report, "Distributed Energy Resources: Technical Considerations for the Bulk Power System." This report filed in Docket No. AD18-10-000 considers how the increasing penetration and integration of distributed energy resources in specific regions may affect bulk power system reliability. It summarizes technical assessments performed by Commission staff using industry power system models and commercially available power system simulation software "to identify the potential reliability issues and likely benefits to the bulk power system" from increasing distributed energy resource penetration. The study notes that its modeling of distributed energy resource capacity was "based on current trends for technology types, operational capabilities, and deployment distributions."

According to the report, greater penetration of distributed energy resources could have associated reliability benefits for the bulk power system. For example, by providing power close to the customer distributed resources can serve to reduce grid losses and reduce system peak load, or can serve as non-transmission alternatives that displace the need for more expensive wires upgrades.

At the same time, the report warns that "increasing DER capacity, if not properly accounted for, could cause reliability concerns for the bulk power system." It calls for improving and refining the data that is available for distributed energy resources for incorporation into planning and operating models, noting, "Collecting and using the most current and accurate data is key to getting a complete picture of how DERs affect the bulk power system."

The report identified key bulk power system reliability topics to explore in light of the growing adoption of distributed energy resources in the U.S., including:

• The impact of the current common industry modeling practice of netting DERs with load, which may mask the effects of DER operation;
• DER capabilities for voltage and frequency ride through during contingencies;
• The potential for improved voltages due to the unloading of the bulk power system associated with the location of DERs at or near customer loads;
• Potential effects upon system -wide transmission line flows and generation dispatch due to changing load patterns;
• The sensitivity of voltage or power needs to different types of DER applications (i.e., providing energy, capacity, or ancillary services);
• The need to develop planning processes that capture more detailed models of DERs and allow for modeling of the interface between the transmission and distribution systems to enable information exchange and more accurate calculations of the DER impact on the bulk power system; and
• The advantages and disadvantages of allowing DERs to participate directly in the organized wholesale electric markets.

The report also calls for continued examination of other issues, such as "sensitivities with higher DER penetration levels, changes in siting patterns, and potential impacts to the system’s response to events, disruptions and outages, including frequency events." It concludes, "Efforts such as these could help track and assess the impact of changing conditions on the bulk power system to identify emerging trends and address potential future reliability challenges."

FERC Order 841 and electric storage markets

U.S. energy regulators have issued a final rule designed to help electric storage resources participate in the capacity, energy and ancillary services markets operated by regional grid operators. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said its Order No. 841 would remove barriers to the participation of electric storage resources in wholesale markets operated by regional transmission organization and independent system operators.

Electricity storage technologies have been around for some time, and some technologies like pumped hydropower storage have been deployed on a significant scale -- but new electric technologies are developing on top of these traditional technologies. New England's regional grid operator recently cited fast-responding energy storage devices as among the new technologies entering its markets. Many states have recognized the opportunities created by storage, and are enacting incentives to support its development and integration into microgrids. At the same time, regulators are grappling with how to fit energy storage resources into existing markets and incentive programs, like retail net metering.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has considered electric storage for some time, including stakeholder workshops, data requests, and technical conferences. The Commission expressed concerns that barriers to electric storage resources participation in organized wholesale markets could lead to unjust and unreasonable wholesale electricity rates. In November 2016, the Commission proposed a rule to facilitate electric storage resources' participation in organized wholesale markets. In January 2017, the Commission issued a policy statement addressing how electric storage resources may provide services at a mix of cost-based and market-based rates.

In issuing Order No. 841 on February 15, 2018, the Commission adopted a final rule requiring each RTO and ISO to revise its tariff to establish a "participation model" for electric storage resources. As envisioned by the Commission, these participation models will consist of market rules that facilitate electric storage resources' participation in organized wholesale markets, while recognizing storage resources' physical and operational characteristics.

The new rule provides that each RTO and ISO must adopt its own participation model for electric storage resources, within certain guidelines. First, the participation model must ensure that storage resources using it are eligible to provide all capacity, energy, and ancillary services they are technically capable of providing. Second, the participation model must ensure that participating storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer, consistent with rules that govern the conditions under which a resource can set the wholesale price. Third, the participation model must account for the physical and operational characteristics of electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means Fourth, it must a minimum size requirement for participation in the RTO and ISO markets that does not exceed 100 kW.

The rule also requires that the sale of electric energy from the RTO or ISO market to an electric storage resource that the resource then resells back to those markets must be at the wholesale locational marginal price.

In an accompanying statement, Commissioner LaFleur described electric storage as "like a 'Swiss army knife' that can serve customers in multiple ways," including including providing energy, particularly in conjunction with variable renewable generation (example: Deepwater Wind has proposed offshore wind plus storage in response to the pending Massachusetts offshore wind solicitation) as well as providing frequency regulation and other ancillary services, and helping defer distribution and transmission needs. Commissioner Powelson noted its consistency with the Commission's "longstanding commitment to fostering innovation and competition by reducing and eliminating barriers to entry." Commissioner Glick said Order No. 841 "will facilitate the development of a class of technologies—ranging from batteries to pumped hydro—that has the potential to play a leading role in the transition to the electricity system of the future, but that has heretofore been hindered by market rules that were designed primarily to accommodate more conventional means of electric generation."

Once it takes effect, the final rule gives RTOs and ISOs 270 days to develop and file their proposed rule changes, and a year for their implementation.

Sabine Pass LNG tanks leaked, says regulator

U.S. regulators of natural gas infrastructure have issued an order requiring the owner of a liquefied natural gas terminal in Louisiana to remove part of that facility from service, following the discovery of unintended releases of LNG from the facility.

At issue is Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC's Sabine Pass Liquefaction Facility. The company is a subsidiary of Cheniere Energy, Inc. The Sabine Pass LNG terminal includes five LNG storage tanks with capacity of approximately 16.9 billion cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe), two marine berths that can accommodate vessels with nominal capacity of up to 266,000 cubic meters and vaporizers with regasification capacity of approximately 4.0 Bcf/d, adjacent to a series of liquefaction trains. The facility has received U.S. Department of Energy authorization for export of LNG by vessel.

According to a Corrective Action Order issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on February 8, 2018, on January 22, 2018, workers at the Sabine Pass plant discovered a release of LNG from a storage tank at the facility. The order states that LNG escaped from the tank into the annulus -- the space between the tank's inner and outer walls -- which eventually caused cracks in the outer tank wall and the pooling of LNG in a secondary containment area. It also says that the federal investigation into this incident discovered additional LNG releases from multiple cracks in another tank at the site, with evidence of "brittle failures" in the carbon steel outer tank wall.

The order says Sabine took steps upon discovery of the incident including commencing de-inventorying LNG from the tank, reducing system pressures, and deploying an emergency management team. Sabine reported no injuries or fatalities as a result of the incident, and there were no reported fires or explosions. The cause of the incident has not yet been determined.

The PHMSA order requiring corrective action includes a finding "that the continued operation of the Affected Tanks without corrective measures is or would be hazardous to life, property and the environment." It describes unintended releases of LNG as "rare ... low -frequency, high-consequence" events which "can result in a serious hazard to people and property." It notes, "To date, Sabine has been unable to correct the long-standing safety concerns described above involving the Affected Tanks, cannot validate the exact source or amount of the LNG that may have leaked into the annulus of the Affected Tanks, and cannot identify the circumstances that allowed the LNG to escape containment in the first place."

The order requires Sabine to develop a timeline and plan for removing the two "Affected Tanks" and their associated systems from service. A third tank is described in a footnote to the order as having experienced releases of LNG from the inner tank into the annular space, but is not included as one of the "Affected Tanks" covered by the order requiring corrective action. It requires Sabine to develop a work-plan including tank-specific purging plans, a root-cause analysis plan, a detailed repair and modification plan, a continuing operation plan for facilities that remain in service, and a plan to return the affected tanks to service, and prohibits Sabine from returning the affected tanks to service until authorized to do so by the Director of PHMSA.

FERC grid reliability and resilience pricing questions

U.S. energy regulators have asked for public comment on a rule proposed by the Secretary of Energy that would require organized grid operators to pay certain electric generators for their grid reliability and resilience benefits.

On September 28, 2017, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider a proposed rule on an expedited basis.  The proposed rule defines an "eligible grid reliability and resiliency resource" based on criteria including the ability to provide essential energy and ancillary reliability services and to have a 90-day fuel supply on site enabling it to operate during an emergency, extreme weather conditions, or a natural or man-made disaster.  It would requires independent system operators and regional transmission organizations to establish a tariff that provides a " just and reasonable rate" for the purchase of electric energy from such resources including recovery of costs and a return on equity

On October 2, the Commission issued a Notice Inviting Comments, asking interested persons to submit comments regarding the proposal on or before October 23, 2017.  Two days later, Commission staff followed up with a series of questions for public comment.  Questions in that document cover topics including the need for reform, eligibility, implementation, and rates, as well as impacts on consumers.

Some questions posed by the Commission staff in its October 4, 2017 document are general, such as, "What is resilience, how is it measured, and how is it different from reliability? What levels of resilience and reliability are appropriate?"  Others ask for whether commenters agree with references in the proposed rule to the 2014 "Polar Vortex" and "other extreme weather events, specifically hurricanes Irma, Harvey, Maria, and superstorm Sandy," as well as "the retirement of coal and nuclear resources and a concern from Congress about the potential further loss of valuable generation resources" as justifying the need for action.

As previously noticed by the Commission, initial comments on the proposed Grid Reliability and Resilience Pricing Rule in Docket No. RM18-1-000 are due on or before October 23, 2017 and reply comments due on or before November 7, 2017.

Dominion affiliate proposes Tazewell pumped storage project

A Virginia-based utility company has applied to federal regulators for a preliminary permit to study the feasibility of a pumped hydroelectric storage facility in the coalfield region of Southwest Virginia. If built, Dominion Energy Services, Inc.'s Tazewell Hybrid Energy Center Project could use mine water sources for the initial fill and makeup water. 

On September 6, 2017, Dominion Energy Services, Inc. filed an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Tazewell Hybrid Energy Center Project. As described in Dominion’s application, a September 7 press release, and a September 29 notice by the Commission, the Tazewell project would be a pumped hydroelectric storage facility. According to Dominion, the project would “be operated by Dominion Energy Virginia for hydropower generation during peak energy demand periods and pumping during off-peak energy demand periods.” Dominion points to grid benefits from pumped storage including integration of intermittent power generation sources, enhancement of grid stability and supply of other ancillary benefits. The applicant notes that the site “could support multiple configurations, including different-sized pumped-storage facilities,” a flexibility which Dominion said enables it to determine the best environmental, technical and economic solution.

The project would not use any existing dams or hydroelectric facilities, but would involve new dams and other facilities constructed for the proposed project. In its application, Dominion described two alternative configurations — a smaller Alternative 1 and a larger-capacity Alternative 2 – featuring an upper reservoir and a lower reservoir. Under either alternative, Dominion described potential water sources “for the initial fill and makeup water” as

(1) Mine ID P03_903 and (2) Mine ID P03_017. The initial fill water for the Project's reservoirs will be supplied by one or more of these water sources via a proposed pump and water conveyance system… Although the upper reservoir would be located on Oneida Branch and the lower reservoir would be located in West Fork Cove Creek, it is anticipated that the proposed Project will use mine water sources for the initial fill and makeup water.

Dominion says it will evaluate the feasibility of relying on mine water sources under the preliminary permit.

Dominion’s press release mentioned that it is also conducting in-depth studies of another potential site for a pumped hydroelectric storage facility, the former Bullitt Mine near Appalachia, Virginia. That mine has been closed since 1997 and is currently flooded.

In its application, Dominion cited 2017 Virginia legislation that it said “encourages one or more pumped storage stations and includes a requirement that all or a portion of it be powered by renewable energy produced in the coalfield region.”  That legislation amended existing law to allow a utility to petition the State Corporation Commission for approval of a rate adjustment clause to recover from customers the costs of “one or more pumped hydroelectricity generation and storage facilities that utilize on-site or off-site renewable energy resources as all or a portion of their power source and such facilities and associated resources are located in the coalfield region of the Commonwealth ... regardless of whether such facility is located within or without the utility's service territory.” The coalfield region is defined as including seven counties and one city: Lee, Wise, Scott, Buchanan, Russell, Tazewell and Dickenson Counties and the City of Norton.

Deepwater Wind proposes offshore wind, battery storage for MA RFP

Massachusetts energy regulators are reviewing bids to supply clean energy from new sources -- including a combined offshore wind and energy storage project proposed by developer Deepwater Wind.

Rhode Island-based Deepwater Wind is the developer of America's first commercial offshore wind project, the 30 MW Block Island Wind Farm which began commercial operations in December 2016. Other projects in early-stage development by the company include the 90 MW South Fork Wind Farm serving Long Island and the 120 MW Skipjack Wind Farm serving Maryland.

Earlier this year, prompted by 2016 state legislation, the Massachusetts electric distribution companies, in coordination with the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, issued a Request for Proposals for Long-term Contracts for Clean Energy Projects pursuant to Section 83D.  Through the RFP, the Massachusetts utilities solicited proposals for clean energy generation in an amount roughly equal to 9,450,000 MWh.

According to Deepwater Wind, it responded to the Massachusetts clean energy RFP by proposing the Revolution Wind farm, paired with a battery storage system.  The company's prime proposal features 144 MW of wind generation, coupled with a 40 MWh battery system, which it says will "help to defer the need to construct costly new peaking generating facilities and controversial transmission lines."  The project would be sited on the Outer Continental Shelf off Massachusetts, about 30 miles from the mainland and about 12 miles off Martha's Vineyard, under a lease from the federal government.  It would be adjacent to Deepwater Wind’s South Fork Wind Farm.  Emphasizing flexibility and scalability, as well as the ability to complete construction in one season, alternative bids submitted by the company envisioned a larger 288 MW version of Revolution Wind and a smaller 96 MW version.

Deepwater Wind says it also intends to submit an offshore wind proposal under a separate solicitation process under way in under Section 83C of Massachusetts law, with bids due by December 2018.

NY energy storage bill would launch program

The New York legislature has unanimously passed a bill establishing an energy storage deployment program.  The bill, S. 5190, aims to promote the installation of energy storage systems.  The bill now awaits Governor Andrew Cuomo's signature, before it can take effect.

New York is in the midst of major shifts in its energy policy.  Governor Cuomo's "Reforming the Energy Vision" or REV process aims to build a clean, more resilient, and affordable energy system for all New Yorkers.  As part of that process, last year, the Public Service Commission adopted a Clean Energy Standard which requires 50% of New York’s electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2030, and provides support for 3 nuclear power plants considered at risk of closing.  Meanwhile, the state is also reforming the way energy service companies, or retail electric suppliers, market their services.

In adopting renewable energy procurement mandates as part of the Clean Energy Standard in 2016, the Commission also considered creating specific mandates for energy storage.  As noted in the order adopting the Clean Energy Standard, "Storage is a critically important component of the energy system that is both distributed and increasingly reliant on intermittent resources. Unlike other resources, the load shifting and fast response capabilities of various forms of storage resources allow them to provide simultaneous value as an energy and reliability resource. Storage can also provide value to the distribution based retail and bulk power markets... In short, it is without question that modern markets must sufficiently and accurately value storage as a vehicle to design and optimize network planning and operations."

But in that order, the Commission concluded that "as a reliability support and system optimizing resource, storage is not properly characterized as a standalone renewable energy resource under the CES. That being said, if the various mechanisms that the Commission is pursuing to ensure storage takes it rightful place as a critical resource for the modern grid prove insufficient, this topic will be revisited."

S. 5190 would change New York's position, by requiring that the Commission establish 2030 targets for the installation of qualified energy storage systems.  It defines a qualified system as technology using mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to absorb, store, and dispatch energy generated from renewable resources or mechanical processes.  The bill's official justification statement cites the increased use of intermittent renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, in an effort to combat climate change, and the efficiency of using energy storage systems to solve issues relating to changes in how energy supply and demand align in time.

Three other states -- Massachusetts, California, and Oregon -- have adopted energy storage procurement policies, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is exploring how electric storage resources can be integrated into wholesale and regulated markets.

Licensee seeks West Branch and Sysladobsis Dam amendment

A Maine dam owner has applied to federal regulators seeking to exclude from its hydropower license one of two dam-based developments which comprise the project.

At issue is the January 31, 2017 application of Woodland Pulp LLC to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an amendment to the license for the West Branch Storage Dam Project.  The West Branch project was first licensed in 1980, and currently operates under a license issued by the Commission in 2016.  It includes two developments -- Sysladobsis and West Grand -- each of which operates as a water storage facility to provide flood storage and flow releases for downstream hydroelectric generation. 

As described in the license amendment application, the Sysladobsis development includes Sysladobsis Dam.  This dam is about 250 feet long and 9 feet high, consisting of three earth embankment sections, a small timber gate structure, and a fish passage facility.  The dam impounds the 5,400-acre Sysladobsis Lake; water released from the dam flows Sysladobsis Lake into the downstream West Grand impoundment, then into either Grand Lake Stream or Grand Lake Brook.  The project does not include any electricity generating facilities, but rather operates as part of a 112-year-old system of headwater storage dams in the St. Croix River watershed including Woodland Pulp LLC’s Forest City Project No. 2660 which the licensee has applied and the recently relicensed Vanceboro Project No. 2492. Generation associated with these projects occurs at the Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects downstream on the St. Croix River.

The licensee has requested FERC approval to remove the Sysladobsis development from the West Branch Project as a legal matter, and proposes "to remove the two wooden gates at the Sysladobsis Dam," but says it "does not propose to remove the Sysladobsis Dam as part of the amendment, and such removal is not necessary or appropriate."  Rather, the applicant asserts, "There will be no structural alteration of the dam, and there will be no discharge into the water. Once the gates are removed, the dam will no longer act as a water control structure for Sysladobsis Lake. Instead, impoundment levels and outflow will be determined by the natural precipitation cycle."

According to the licensee's application, "This change is necessary since operation of the Project as-is will no longer be economic under the new license issued March 15, 2016."  The licensee cited license terms and conditions including specific water level requirements and operating plans, reporting, and consultation requirements, "some with unreasonable time constraints."  The application notes, "As such Woodland cannot continue to fund and support the Sysladobsis development and incur increased losses on non-economically viable facility components."

In a separate docket, the Commission is considering an application by the same licensee to surrender its Forest City project license.

Fate of U.S.-Canada dam license in question

The holder of the U.S. federal hydropower license for a dam spanning the international border with Canada border has petitioned for approval to surrender that license, citing economic considerations.

At issue is the Forest City Project, located on the East Branch of the St. Croix River which forms the international boundary between the United States and Canada.  The Project operates under conditions set by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in accordance with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, as well as a license issued by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The project currently operates under a license issued on November 23, 2015.  That 30-year license expires on October 31, 2045.

Licensed by the Commission as Project No. 2660, the project includes the U.S. portions of a 540-foot-long, 12-foot-high earth dam, an impoundment spanning several lakes, and appurtenant facilities. There are no generating facilities located at the project; rather, the Forest City Project operates as part of a headwater storage system along with two other projects licensed to Woodland Pulp -- West Branch Project No. 2618 and Vanceboro Project No. 2492.  Two hydroelectric generation projects are located downstream on the St. Croix River from these storage facilities, the unlicensed Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects.

On December 23, 2016, Forest City Project licensee Woodland Pulp LLC applied to the Commission to surrender its license.  A cover letter attached to that application states, "Woodland Pulp has determined that the high cost of operating the Project pursuant to the new FERC license renders the Project uneconomical." In the surrender application itself, the company cited license provisions including new operating restrictions on reservoir pool elevation, a reservation of the Commission’s authority to require additional fishways if so prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and a requirement to develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP), as adding risk or cost.  As noted in the surrender application, "After a comprehensive review of the conditions in the License, the minimal contribution to downstream power generation, and the significant added cost and increased complexity of the License, coupled with the loss of flexibility required to comply with the License, Woodland Pulp has concluded that it is not economic for the company to continue to operate the project.

As described by the Commission in an April 6, 2017 public notice of the surrender application, the licensee proposes to remove the gates on the west side of the spillway.  According to the licensee, removing these gates will return water flow to natural flow conditions, and the Forest City Dam will no longer act as the water control structure for East Grand Lake, nor will it use, obstruct, or divert international boundary waters.

The Commission has docketed the surrender application as P-2660-028, and set deadlines for comments, protests, and interventions in the case.

FERC electric storage policy statement

U.S. energy regulators have issued a policy statement addressing how electric storage resources may provide services at a mix of cost-based and market-based rates.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's January 19, 2017 policy statement on storage provides insight into how the Commission views its role in regulating the rates at which energy storage would be compensated -- but was accompanied by a dissenting view expressed by Commissioner LaFleur.   The result is a mix of both greater certainty and continued debate.

Electricity storage is a growing industry, both in terms of installed capacity and its capability to flexibly support the grid.  Today's electric storage resources can both charge and discharge electricity to and from the grid.  Moreover they can provide various services to multiple entities -- for example, consumers, grid operators, or transmission and distribution utilities -- and can switch nearly instantaneously between modes of operation or services provided.  In these ways, electric storage resources share some functions of consumer load, generation, transmission, and distribution. 

Some of these functions -- e.g. sales of electric energy at wholesale in an organized market -- may be compensated at market-based rates.  But other functions of energy storage could be compensated at cost-based rates under federal law -- perhaps functioning as a transmission asset, compensated through transmission rates.  Thus it's possible that a particular energy storage resource -- think a battery attached to the electric grid, perhaps sited at a factory or other consumer's location -- might be compensated for its operations under both cost-based and market-based rates.

This is a good thing, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  According to the January 19, 2017 policy statement, "Enabling electric storage resources to provide multiple services (including both cost-based and market-based services) ensures that the full capabilities of these resources can be realized, thereby maximizing their efficiency and value for the system and to consumers."

But previous proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have exposed some concerns about allowing electric storage resources to recover costs through both cost-based and market-based rates concurrently.  As described by the Commission, these include "double recovery of costs to the detriment of cost-based ratepayers, potential for adverse competitive impacts in wholesale electric markets to the detriment of other competitors, and the need for independence of regional grid operators from market participants."

With respect to utilities subject to its jurisdiction, the Commission's recent policy statement, "Utilitzation of Electric Storage Resources for Multiple Services When Receiving Cost-Based Rate Recovery," provides guidance regarding these issues.  It details possible approaches for avoiding double recovery of costs.  The Commission notes that with regard to adverse market impacts, it "is not convinced there will be a detriment to other market competitors."  The policy statement also offers guidance on how grid operators and electric storage owners or operators should interact, to ensure independence as required by Commission policy.

Commissioner LaFleur issued a dissenting opinion, while nevertheless calling storage "an important and promising resource that warrants Commission attention to ensure that our markets are appropriately adapted to recognize storage’s unique characteristics and contributions."  While expressing an openness "to potential structures that compensate storage providing transmission service at a cost-based rate while participating in the wholesale markets", she expressed concern "about the broad rationale for this approach put forth in the Policy Statement," which she called "both flawed in its conclusions and premature in its timing."  In particular her dissent focused on what she described as "the Policy Statement’s sweeping conclusions about the potential impacts of multiple payment streams on pricing in wholesale electric markets" -- and whether it might have implications for resources other than storage that receive multiple payment streams.  She also disagreed with the Commission's decision to issue the policy statement separate from its pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the participation of electric storage in wholesale markets.

Both the majority policy statement and Commissioner LaFleur's dissent shed light on how the Commission approaches energy storage rate issues.  Storage seems universally considered worth investigating or supporting, but disagreement remains within the Commission with respect to some aspects of how storage resources should be compensated (as well as procedural issues related to the Commission's consideration of these questions).  Nevertheless the policy statement does provide guidance and clarification into how a majority of the Commission views the compensation of storage resources under both cost- and market-based rate structures -- while also framing future discussions over how storage resources will be integrated into markets.

Electric storage resources technical conference set

U.S. energy regulators have scheduled a technical conference to discuss electric storage resources and how they could fit into the electric grid -- and how they might be compensated for doing so.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will convene the discussion on November 9, 2016.

An electric storage resource is a facility that can receive electric energy from the grid and store it for later injection of electricity back to the grid.  Different projects might use different storage mediums -- for example, batteries, flywheels, or pumped hydropower.  A storage resource could be as small as a household battery, or as large as gigawatt-scale pumped storage. Projects could be interconnected in various ways -- such as to the transmission system, distribution system, or behind a customer meter -- and could serve different markets, ranging from regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, to transmission or distribution utilities, to customers or end users of electricity.

While each energy storage resource configuration offers its own different advantages and disadvantages from various perspectives, overall the Commission has noted that "storage resources may fit into one or more of the traditional asset functions of generation, transmission, and distribution."  In the Commission's Notice of Technical Conference, it expressed a desire "to explore the circumstances under which it may be appropriate for electric storage resources to provide multiple services, whether the RTO/ISO tariffs need to include provisions to accommodate these business models, and how the Commission may ensure just and reasonable compensation for these resources in the RTO/ISO markets."

The specific subject of the conference described in the Notice is "the utilization of electric storage resources as transmission assets compensated through transmission rates, for grid support services that are compensated in other ways, and for multiple services."  The Notice also sets up discussion of other issues including

(1) potential models for cost recovery for electric storage resources utilized as transmission assets, while also selling energy, capacity or ancillary services at wholesale;

(2) potential models to enable an electric storage resource to provide a compensated grid support service (like a generator providing  ancillary services under a reliability must-run contract) rather than being compensated for providing transmission service; and

(3) practical considerations for electric storage resources providing multiple services at once (i.e., providing both wholesale service(s) and retail and/or end-use service(s)). 

FERC will webcast and transcribe the conference, in addition to allowing in-person attendance.  The Commision directed those wishing to participate to submit a nomination form online by 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2016.

Energy storage is attracting increased interest.  In another open docket, the Commission issued a series of data requests and a request for public comment in an effort to identify barriers to electric storage resources' participation in organized electricity markets in the U.S that could lead to unjust and unreasonable wholesale electricity rates.  In 2009, then-Chairman Wellinghoff testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on the role of grid-scale energy storage as it relates to U.S. energy and climate goals, including its ability to integrate variable resources such as wind and solar into the grid.  Meanwhile, states too are pursuing storage opportunities.  A Massachusetts state energy office has issued a report finding that Massachusetts has the potential to develop for 600 MW of energy storage by 2025, which could lower costs, reduce carbon emissions, and improve grid reliability.

Massachusetts energy storage report

A Massachusetts state energy office has issued a report finding that Massachusetts has the potential to develop for 600 MW of energy storage by 2025, which could lower costs, reduce carbon emissions, and improve grid reliability. Legislation earlier this year authorized the creation of an energy storage procurement target; the Department of Energy Resource’s State of Charge report could lead to further policy changes supportive of storage.

While electricity has traditionally been challenging to store efficiently, advanced energy storage technologies – such as batteries, flywheels, thermal and compressed air technologies – now allow utilities and consumers to store and release energy as needed. Last year, the Baker-Polito administration launched an Energy Storage Initiative to advance the energy storage segment of the Massachusetts clean energy industry.

This summer, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a broad energy diversification law, authorizing among other things the creation of an energy storage procurement target, if the Department of Energy Resources deems such a target prudent.  Section 15 of H.4568 requires the Department of Energy Resources to determine, by December 31, 2016, whether to set “appropriate targets for electric companies to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems” to be achieved by January 1, 2020. If the Department finds it appropriate to adopt procurement targets, the law requires it to do so by July 1, 2017, with reevaluations of the procurement targets not less than every 3 years.

Meanwhile, on September 16, 2016, the administration released its State of Charge report. The report found that energy storage could yield significant cost savings for Massachusetts ratepayers, reduce the impacts of peak demand on the state’s energy infrastructure, and enable improved integration of renewable resources and reduced carbon emissions.

The report recommends policy changes, ranging from regional coordination on energy storage, broadening the Alternative Portfolio Standard (APS) with respect to advanced energy storage, to using energy storage in existing energy efficiency programs or as a utility grid modernization asset, and seeking “renewables plus storage” contracts in future long-term clean energy procurements.

According to the report, adopting these recommendations could yield 600 MW of advanced energy storage technologies deployed on the Massachusetts grid by 2025, with projected ratepayer cost savings of over $800 million and approximately 350,000 metric tons reduction in greenhouse emissions over a 10 year time span.

The Department of Energy Resources will now hold a stakeholder engagement process relating to energy storage, starting with a meeting scheduled for September 27. DOER is expected to determine whether Massachusetts should establish an energy storage procurement target before the end of 2016.