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.
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
Showing posts with label Secretary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secretary. Show all posts
FERC invites comment on grid reliability and resilience pricing proposal
Thursday, October 5, 2017
U.S. electricity regulators have invited public comment on a draft rule proposed by the Secretary of Energy that would require some grid operators to buy electricity from certain generators at rates that allow the generators to recover their costs and a return on equity. The Secretary has set the grid resiliency pricing rulemaking proceeding on a fast track -- but some energy industry associations have asked regulators to allow more time for public participation before finalizing "a proposed rule that could affect electricity prices paid by hundreds of millions of consumers and hundreds of thousands of businesses, as well as entire industries and their tens of thousands of workers."
On September 28, Secretary Perry directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to open an expedited rulemaking proceeding to consider a proposed rule affecting the compensation paid to certain "grid reliability and resiliency resources" with a 90-day fuel supply on site and capable of providing "essential energy and ancillary reliability services, including but not limited to voltage support, frequency services, operating reserves, and reactive power."
Acting under Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Secretary Perry directed the Commission to consider and complete final action on his proposed rule proposed within 60 days. But he also suggested that circumstances warrant faster action -- such as issuing the proposed rule as an interim final rule, effective immediately, with provision for later modifications after consideration of public comments.
On October 2, the Commission issued a Notice Inviting Comments in Docket No. RM18-1-000. That notice invited interested persons to submit comments regarding the proposal on or before October 23, 2017, with reply comments due on or before November 7, 2017.
Also on October 2, a coalition of energy industry associations filed a joint motion asking the Commission to take more time in its consideration of the proposed grid resiliency pricing proposed rule or "NOPR". In that joint motion, the associations note that no emergency or other circumstance exists which justifies the use of an interim final rule. They cite the "importance and potential implications of the NOPR for Commission-jurisdictional markets," calling it "one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry." The associations argue that because the time limits set by the Secretary are "unreasonable," so the Commission should set its own timeline allowing more time for participation.
The energy industry associations who filed the joint motion represent a fairly broad slice of the energy sector. Participating associations include Advanced Energy Economy, American Council on Renewable Energy, American Petroleum Institute, American Wind Energy Association, American Public Power Association, Electric Power Supply Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Natural Gas Supply Association, and Solar Energy Industries Association.
The grid resiliency pricing rule proceeding continues before the Commission.
On September 28, Secretary Perry directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to open an expedited rulemaking proceeding to consider a proposed rule affecting the compensation paid to certain "grid reliability and resiliency resources" with a 90-day fuel supply on site and capable of providing "essential energy and ancillary reliability services, including but not limited to voltage support, frequency services, operating reserves, and reactive power."
Acting under Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Secretary Perry directed the Commission to consider and complete final action on his proposed rule proposed within 60 days. But he also suggested that circumstances warrant faster action -- such as issuing the proposed rule as an interim final rule, effective immediately, with provision for later modifications after consideration of public comments.
On October 2, the Commission issued a Notice Inviting Comments in Docket No. RM18-1-000. That notice invited interested persons to submit comments regarding the proposal on or before October 23, 2017, with reply comments due on or before November 7, 2017.
Also on October 2, a coalition of energy industry associations filed a joint motion asking the Commission to take more time in its consideration of the proposed grid resiliency pricing proposed rule or "NOPR". In that joint motion, the associations note that no emergency or other circumstance exists which justifies the use of an interim final rule. They cite the "importance and potential implications of the NOPR for Commission-jurisdictional markets," calling it "one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry." The associations argue that because the time limits set by the Secretary are "unreasonable," so the Commission should set its own timeline allowing more time for participation.
The energy industry associations who filed the joint motion represent a fairly broad slice of the energy sector. Participating associations include Advanced Energy Economy, American Council on Renewable Energy, American Petroleum Institute, American Wind Energy Association, American Public Power Association, Electric Power Supply Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Natural Gas Supply Association, and Solar Energy Industries Association.
The grid resiliency pricing rule proceeding continues before the Commission.
Report links US nuclear industry to national security
Friday, August 18, 2017
The U.S. nuclear energy enterprise is a key national security enabler, according to a report released this week by a new non-profit. The Energy Futures Initiative's report describes the domestic nuclear energy industry as playing important roles in both electricity supply and "maintaining a robust supply chain (equipment, services, and skilled
personnel) that is necessary for U.S. leadership in global nuclear
nonproliferation policy."
According to its website, Energy Futures Initiative, Inc. (EFI) is "a new not-for-profit dedicated to driving innovation in energy technology, policy and business models." EFI's principals include fomer U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz.
EFI's August 2017 report, "The U.S. Nuclear Energy Enterprise: A Key National Security Enabler," analyzes the domestic nuclear energy sector's role in meeting national security imperatives, including:
According to its website, Energy Futures Initiative, Inc. (EFI) is "a new not-for-profit dedicated to driving innovation in energy technology, policy and business models." EFI's principals include fomer U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz.
EFI's August 2017 report, "The U.S. Nuclear Energy Enterprise: A Key National Security Enabler," analyzes the domestic nuclear energy sector's role in meeting national security imperatives, including:
- maintaining U.S. leadership in ensuring nuclear non-proliferation;
- supporting the U.S. nuclear Navy; and
- supporting the global strategic stability and deterrence value of nuclear weapons.
The analysis suggests that the imperatives of global climate change, collective energy security, balance of trade and U.S. national security require a viable domestic commercial nuclear power industry, including a robust supply chain of technology, services and human resources. Recent events and future trends point in the opposite direction: commercial reactors are shutting down, new builds are struggling, the supply chain is at risk, and it is likely that the educational pipeline will negatively respond to these challenges.To ensure that the federal government addresses the relationship between a robust nuclear energy enterprise and goals including nonproliferation, Navy fleet modernization, and "the global strategic stability and deterrence value of nuclear weapons," the report suggests steps the U.S. could take. These include making "maximum flexible use of its existing resources and capabilities, including credit support, tax incentives and federal siting and/or purchase power agreements, to bolster support for current new builds and to encourage additional new builds," as well as directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to "place greater emphasis on the national security importance of nuclear power and its associated supply chain." It also suggests that Congress allocate $2 billion per year for the next five years to fund research and development into new reactor designs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
