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.”

Report on US electric grid physical security

Since a 2013 rifle attack on a critical electric power substation in California, the U.S. electric power sector has generally moved toward greater physical security for critical assets, according to a report published by the Congressional Research Service. But the report says bulk power security "remains a work in progress," and suggests further investment -- and policy reforms -- may follow.

The report published on March 19, 2018 -- NERC Standards for Bulk Power Physical Security: Is the Grid More Secure? -- begins with the premise that securing the electric power grid is among the nation's highest priorities for critical infrastructure protection. It notes that a 2013 rifle attack on an electric transmission substation in California which caused widespread power outages also broadened policy attention from cybersecurity to encompass the physical security of assets critical to the power grid.

In response, Congress enacted legislation to strengthen power grid physical security and to facilitate its recovery from disruption. Section 1104 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act contains provisions to protect or restore the reliability of critical electric infrastructure or defense of critical electric infrastructure during a grid security emergency. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the nation's electric reliability organization NERC also took action to develop new reliability standards for the physical security of bulk power critical infrastructure.

But physical security risks may persist. The report references a September 2016 rifle attack on a Garkane Energy Cooperative transformer substation in Utah as illustrating this persistence. The report notes that while it is probably accurate to conclude that the grid is more physically secure than it was in 2013, "it has not necessarily reached the level of physical security needed based on the sector's own assessments of risk.

The report notes Congress's continued concern about the physical security of the electric grid. It identifies possible areas for further policy focus as including "security implementation oversight, cost recovery, hardening vs. resilience, and the quality of threat information."

Meanwhile, cybersecurity has remained a priority. An October 2017 FERC report describing the results of its audits of regulated companies' cybersecurity protection processes and procedures noted that most met the applicable mandatory standards. But earlier this month, NERC fined an anonymous utility $2.7 million for alleged violations of reliability standards in connection with a data security breach, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about Russian hackers targeting computer systems controlling energy and other critical infrastructure.

Interest in shoring up the security of energy infrastructure and systems -- both from physical attacks as well as cyber threats -- appears poised to drive continued discussions, regulation, and investment.

Energy dept adopts grid emergency order rule

U.S. energy regulators have issued a final rule governing the procedures through which the Secretary of Energy may issue an emergency order under the Federal Power Act to respond to an electric grid security emergency.

Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015, Congress authorized the Secretary of Energy to order emergency measures after the President declares a grid security emergency. Such an emergency could occur as the result of a physical attack, a cyber-attack using electronic communication, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), or a geomagnetic storm event. The FAST Act added these powers to the Federal Power Act, which contained additional language authorizing the Secretary to order temporary emergency measures as needed to serve the public interest.

On January 10, the U.S. Department of Energy published its final rule governing grid security emergency orders.  According to the Department, the procedures established by this final rule "will ensure the expeditious issuance of emergency orders under the Federal Power Act." It says the final rule establishes a "consistent yet flexible set of procedures" for regulatory engagement with impacted parties as the Department issues emergency orders. The Department says it "expects that these emergency orders would be issued rarely," but emphasized its need for flexibility in tailoring a response to the particular circumstances of any grid disruption.

The new final rule is codified in 18 C.F.R. section 205.380 et seq.

FERC invites comment on grid reliability and resilience pricing proposal

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.

Total eclipses, solar PV and the grid

Utilities and electric grid coordinators are preparing for a total solar eclipse that is projected to temporarily reduce solar photovoltaic generation across parts of North America this summer. 

The 2017 total solar eclipse will be the first in the U.S. in 26 years (since Hawaii 1991), and the first in the lower 48 states since 1979.  While the duration of the total eclipse across the U.S. will be roughly 93 minutes, some areas in its path will experience up to 95% of the Sun being obscured.

The eclipse is projected to affect solar PV generation.  Solar resources occupy an increasing role in the U.S. electric generating portfolio. Between 2000 and 2016, total U.S. solar capacity increased from 5 megawatts (MW) to 42,619 MW.  But as more solar resources are connected to the grid, the potential impact of an eclipse on grid operations may change.

According to a May 1, 2017 presentation to the Board of Governors of the California ISO, the eclipse is projected to reduce solar output in the CAISO region by 4,194 megawatts, while gross load will increase by 1,365 MW.  Taking into account estimated wind production, the presentation projects a net load increase of 6,008 MW during the eclipse.

The ramp rate, or speed at which supply and demand will change, is also a factor.  The eclipse is projected to diminish solar output by about 70 MW per minute as it approaches totality, and about 90 MW per minute on the return.  By contrast, a typical average ramp rate for CAISO might be 29 MW per minute.  Thus the eclipse is projected to call for a greater degree of fast-ramping or flexible resources, compared to typical operating conditions.

But according to international electric reliability organization NERC, the August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse "is unlikely to cause any reliability issues to the North American bulk power system."  NERC documented its findings in an April 25, 2017 white paper, A Wide-Area Perspective on the August 21, 2017 Total Solar Eclipse.  NERC's report identifies California and North Carolina as the states most likely to experience the greatest impact from solar production fall-off from the eclipse. At the same time, NERC recommends "that utilities in all states perform specific studies of the eclipse’s impact of solar photovoltaic power output on their systems and retain necessary resources to meet the increased electricity demand requirements."  In particular, NERC notes that generation and system operators may greater visibility into utility-scale solar projects than into behind-the-meter or distributed solar photovoltaic resources, highlighting the need to model all scales of solar development.

Following the 2017 eclipse, the next total solar eclipse is projected to cross North America on April 8, 2024.

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.

US, Canada grid security and resilience strategy

The governments of the United States and Canada have released a joint strategy for ensuring the security and resilience of their electric grid.  In recognition of the interconnected nature of the North American electric grid, the document, "Joint United States-Canada Electric Grid Security and Resilience Strategy," describes the nations' shared goals and objectives.  An action plan released alongside the strategy presents U.S. steps and milestones toward achieving the strategy's desired outcomes.

The joint strategy centers on a vision of "a secure and resilient electric grid that is able to withstand hazards and recover efficiently from disruptions."  Recognizing that this grid is made up of a variety of interconnected entities -- including federal, territorial, municipal, co-operative, and investor-owned and operated utilities -- the strategy identifies three overarching goals:

• Protect Today’s Electric Grid and Enhance Preparedness: A secure and resilient electric grid that protects system assets and critical functions and is able to withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions is a priority for the governments of both the United States and Canada.
• Manage Contingencies and Enhance Response and Recovery Efforts: The Strategy sets out a shared approach for enhancing continuity and response capabilities, supporting mutual aid arrangements such as cyber mutual assistance across a diverse set of stakeholders, understanding interdependencies, and expanding available tools for recovery and rebuilding. 
• Build a More Secure and Resilient Future Electric Grid: The United States and Canada are working to build a more secure and resilient electric grid that is responsive to a variety of threats, hazards, and vulnerabilities, including increased threats from climate change. To achieve this, the electric grid will need to be more flexible and agile, with an architecture into which new technologies may be readily incorporated.

Beyond the joint strategy, each participating country has also developed its own individual action plan describing steps and milestones toward the strategic goals.  The U.S. National Electric Grid Security and Resilience Action Plan was released concurrently with the Strategy.

The action plan is generally non-binding on the U.S., and it is unclear whether the incoming Trump administration would adopt the plan, as opposed to revising or scrapping it.  Nevertheless the joint U.S.-Canada grid security and resilience strategy and the U.S. action plan may inform future efforts to strengthen the North American electric grid against risk and disturbance.

Whitestone hydrokinetic license surrendered

Despite efforts to offer a streamlined regulatory path for some demonstration hydropower projects, earlier this year the holder of a hydrokinetic pilot project license for a project proposed for the Tanana River in Alaska surrendered its license due to an inability to find financing. The case of the Whitestone Poncelet River-In-Stream-Energy-Conversion (RISEC) Pilot Project No. 13305 illustrates the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process, the difficulties of testing and developing new hydropower technologies, and how the Commission handles pilot license surrender.

Whitestone Power and Communications, an assumed name of the Whitestone Community Association, had proposed the project as a 100-kilowatt demonstration of its proprietary hydrokinetic prototype technology. It was to be located on the Tanana River at its confluence with the Delta River, about 90 miles southeast of Fairbanks. A Poncelet undershot waterwheel and generator unit mounted on a floating platform, seasonally installed and moored to a cliff. Power produced would be supplied to the Golden Valley Electric Association grid.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted WPC a five-year pilot project license on October 19, 2012. In processing WPC’s application, the Commission used a hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process derived from from its Integrated Licensing Process. According to the Commission, the hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process was designed “to meet the needs of entities, such as Whitestone, who are interested in testing new hydropower technologies while minimizing the risk of adverse environmental impacts.” The Commission describes the goal of the pilot licensing process as “to allow developers to test new hydrokinetic technologies, to determine appropriate sites for these technologies, and to confirm the technology’s environmental and other effects without compromising the Commission’s oversight of the projects and limiting agency and stakeholder input.”

As outlined in a white paper prepared by Commission staff, a hydrokinetic pilot project should be: (1) small; (2) short term; (3) located in environmentally nonsensitive areas; (4) removable and able to be shut down on short notice; (5) removed, with the site restored, before the end of the license term (unless a new license is granted); and (6) initiated by a draft application in a form sufficient to support environmental analysis. After finding the WPC project met these standards, the Commission issued it a license in 2012. Article 301 of the license required the licensee to commence construction of the project works within two years from license issuance, i.e., by October 19, 2014.

Despite winning a license, the project was never built. In 2014, WPC asked for and received a two-year extension of the start-of-construction deadline, “due to unforeseen setbacks in obtaining the necessary financing to begin construction.” But in that order, the Commission reminded the licensee that, pursuant to section 13 of the Federal Power Act, the deadline for starting construction may only be extended once, for a period not exceeding two additional years. Therefore, the Commission noted its inability to grant any further extensions of time for the commencement of project construction.

But in September 2015 WPC applied to the Commission for surrender of its license. In its surrender application, WPC stated that it was unable to obtain the funding necessary to construct the project and had not constructed any project facilities.

In April 2016, the Commission granted WPC's surrender application without condition, citing the facts that the licensee had not commenced construction and that the project site remained unaltered.

The Whitestone project was among the first to use the Commission’s hydrokinetic pilot project licensing process. But despite receiving expedited regulatory treatment in licensing, financing challenges led the licensee to surrender its license before the project could be constructed. Some other proposed hydrokinetic projects have been canceled or put on hold, following licensure; earlier this year, the Commission accepted license surrender for a Washington tidal power project licensed as a 10-year pilot project, after the public utility district proposing it found it economically infeasible. Another project -- an ocean wave energy farm off the Oregon coast -- surrendered its pilot license
 in 2014.

Maine enacts biomass energy support

Maine has adopted a new law to support the state's biomass energy industry.  Governor Paul LePage has signed LD 1676, An Act To Establish a Process for the Procurement of Biomass Resources, as emergency legislation.  As a result, the bill has been enacted into law as Public Law, Chapter 483, from the 127th Maine Legislature.

The Maine State House.

The bill directs the Maine Public Utilities Commission to initiate a competitive solicitation as soon as practicable.  That solicitation will ask for proposals for 2-year contracts for up to 80 megawatts of biomass resources.  To qualify, a biomass resource must be a source of electrical generation fueled by wood, wood waste or landfill gas that produces energy that may be physically delivered to the ISO New England or Northern Maine Independent System Administrator markets.  A resource must also operate at least at a 50% capacity for 60 days prior to the initiation of a competitive solicitation and continues to operate at that capacity except for planned and forced outages.

The law gives the Commission some direction on how to select proposals for contracting.  It requires the Commission to seek to ensure, "to the maximum extent possible" that a contract provides benefits to ratepayers as well as in-state economic development benefits, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, promotes fuel diversity, and supports or improves grid reliability.

The costs of the contracts, other than above-market costs, and all direct financial benefits from the contracts must be allocated to ratepayers according to Maine's statute on allocation of costs and benefits of long-term energy contracts.  Above-market costs will be paid for from a cost recovery fund created by the new law, which allocates up to $13.4 million from the unappropriated surplus of the state's General Fund. 

FERC grid modernization session

U.S. federal energy regulators convene tomorrow to discuss modernization of the nation’s electric power grid.

Recent years have brought significant changes in technology and the ways we use energy.  From distributed energy resources like solar panels to a variety of "smart grid" applications, society has new tools that may be able to improve the nation's energy sector.  As a result, state and federal energy regulators are considering "grid modernization."  Issues in play can include whether improvements to the nation’s electric power grid are appropriate, and if so, how to fund them.

For several years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has considered grid modernization issues.  Now, the Commission has scheduled a grid modernization event for tomorrow.

At the Commission's April meeting, it will hear from representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, including Patricia A. Hoffman, assistant secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and Roland Risser, acting deputy assistant secretary for Renewable Power.  The Energy Department will also offer panelists from its National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Following the FERC meeting, the panelists will be available for a post-meeting information session on the work of the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium.  Panelists are expected to discuss devices and integrated systems, sensing and measurement, system operations, control and power flow, design and planning tools, security and resilience, and institutional support.

FERC holds CO microhydro needs license

In an order issued earlier this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the developer of a micro-hydropower project proposed in Colorado must obtain a license for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project's construction, maintenance, and operation.  The order illustrates one challenge facing small, distributed hydroelectric projects in the U.S.: a federal regulatory process that at times can treat microhydro projects much like traditional large dams, despite interest in a streamlined permitting process for small projects.

At issue is Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act.  It provides that any person intending to construct project works on a non-navigable commerce clause water must file a declaration of their intention to do so with the Commission. Section 23(b) further provides that upon the filing of a Declaration of Intent, the Commission will investigate the proposed project, and, if it finds that the “interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected” by the proposed project, then the person intending to construct the project must obtain a Commission license before starting construction.

Under section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 817(1), a non-federal hydroelectric project must be licensed (unless it has a still-valid pre-1920 federal permit) if it:

(a) is located on a navigable water of the United States;
(b) occupies lands or reservations of the United States;
(c) utilizes surplus water or waterpower from a government dam; or
(d) is located on a stream over which Congress has Commerce clause jurisdiction, is constructed or modified on or after August 26, 1935, and affects the interests of interstate or foreign commerce.

On May 11, 2015, as supplemented on November 10, 2015, Steve Patton filed a Declaration of Intention with the Commission concerning the proposed Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.  The project would be located on Colombine Creek, a feeder stream to the South Fork of the Rio Grande, near the town of South Fork, Mineral County, Colorado.  It would consist of an intake and pipes feeding a gravitation water vortex-type generating unit rated between 2 and 10 kilowatts with 2.5 feet of head, transmission line, and appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would be connected to the interstate electric grid.

In the case of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project, the Commission found that licensure is required under the fourth prong of Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, which itself has three components.

First, the Commission found that the Patton project would be located on a "Commerce Clause stream."  Specifically, the Commission found that Colombine Creek is a headwater or tributary of the South Fork of the Rio Grande, which is a tributary of the Rio Grande River, a navigable water of the United States.  Under a 1965 Supreme Court precedent, for purposes of FPA section 23(b)(1), the headwaters and tributaries of navigable rivers are Commerce Clause streams.

Second, the project would be constructed after August 26, 1935. 

Third, citing a 1992 opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Commission noted, "It is well settled that small hydroelectric projects that are connected to the interstate grid affect interstate commerce by displacing power from the grid, and the cumulative effect of the national class of these small projects is significant for purposes of the FPA section 23(b)(1)."  Thus the Commission concluded that the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project would affect interstate commerce through its connection to the interstate grid.

Based on these conclusions, the Commission found that in accordance with section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, the applicant must obtain a license for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.  The Commission also ruled that no construction or operation of the project may commence until a license has been obtained.

Notably, the Commission was able to reach this conclusion without making a navigability finding for Colombine Creek itself.  In particular, the order notes "insufficient evidence to determine whether Colombine Creek is navigable." But because the Commission found licensing to be required on other grounds -- grounds derived from the ultimate navigability of a downstream river -- it did not make a navigability finding for the river reach where the project would be located.

The Commission's order did suggest that an easier path may be available for the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project.  In particular, the order notes that the project may be eligible for an exemption from licensing.  It suggests that the applicant consider applying for a small hydroelectric power project exemption of 10 megawatts (MW) or less.  This more limited approval could enable project development and operation through a more streamlined regulatory processes than that required for a full project license.

Incentives and policy support for microhydro projects are growing.  But as the Patton Colorado Hydropower Project case before the FERC illustrates, even small hydropower projects may be subject to federal regulation.  For some projects, an exemption may be available, but others may not be able to be developed without a FERC license.  Even an exemption can take time and expense to secure, and it can be hard to preduct the outcome of an application for an exemption.  How does this dynamic affect the rate of development of U.S. micro-hydropower projects?

Northern Pass files with NH SEC

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

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

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

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

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

NH explores electric grid modernization

New Hampshire regulators are considering whether and how to modernize the state’s electric grid. In a recently opened investigation, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission seeks to educate stakeholders about grid modernization and to explore to what extent that grid modernization is workable in New Hampshire.

Last year, the New Hampshire Office of Energy & Planning issued its 10-Year State Energy Strategy.  In that document, the administration called for "a more flexible and resilient electric grid to support new technologies, increase consumer participation in energy management, and fortify our resiliency in the face of price and supply volatility and extreme weather events."  The first step identified in the Energy Strategy was to open a PUC docket on grid modernization:

The electric grid is aging, and changing consumer use patterns, a new generation mix, and increased threats from severe weather events require a more modern system. The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission should open a docket to determine how to advance grid modernization in the state. In light of the potential breadth of the topic, which could include dynamic pricing, better consumer access to technology, and even rethinking the role of utilities, an investigation or information ‐ gathering proceeding may be an appropriate first step. This less formal proceeding would give all stakeholders a chance to learn about grid modernization and could inform the specific areas that should be pursued within future dockets. This would allow the PUC and stakeholders to determine which approaches will benefit New Hampshire consumers, and when and how they should be implemented.

Earlier this summer, the New Hampshire legislature enacted House Bill 614, implementing the recommendations in the Energy Strategy.  As Governor Hassan noted in her signing statement, the bill requires the Public Utilities Commission to "begin a process focused on modernizing our electric grid to ensure that we are prepared for an innovative energy future and to set an electricity peak time reduction goal, which can help lower the high costs of producing electricity when demand is greatest."

That process is now underway.  The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission opened its investigation by order dated July 30, 2015.  The Commission gave interested parties until September 17, 2015 to provide comment on the definition, or elements, of grid modernization that should be included in its investigation.  The Commission directed its staff to schedule a technical session following a review of comments submitted, and to develop a procedural schedule for the rest of the case.

CT examines energy storage, grid improvements

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has opened a proceeding to implement a state law advancing energy storage systems and other improvements to the electric grid.  The Distributed Energy Resource Integration Demonstration Project program is designed to find best practices on how different grid-side system enhancements can be reliably and efficiently integrated into the grid in a manner that is cost-effective for all ratepayers.  The recently opened case has the potential to lead to significant investment in energy storage in Connecticut and other grid advancements.

The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, or DEEP, was established on July 1, 2011 as a combination of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Public Utility Control as well as other state energy policy staff.  DEEP has a dual mandate of conserving, improving and protecting Connecticut's natural resources and environment, as well as supporting economic development by making cheaper, cleaner and more reliable energy available.

In June 2015, the Connecticut legislature passed a sweeping bill formally known as June Special Session Public Act 15-5, An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017, Concerning General Government, Education, Health and Human Services and Bonds of the State (“the Act”).  Section 103 of the Act requires Connecticut electric distribution companies to submit a proposal or proposals to DEEP for demonstration projects to build, own, or operate grid-side system enhancements, such as energy storage systems.  Proposals are supposed to:

• Demonstrate and investigate how distributed energy resources (DER) can be reliably and efficiently integrated into the electric distribution system;
• Maximize the value provided to the electric grid, electric ratepayers, and the public from distributed energy resources; and
• Complement and enhance the programs, products, and incentives available through the Connecticut Green Bank, the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund, and other similar programs.

As an initial step in the implementation of this program, DEEP has opened a proceeding to establish priority goals and objectives for the DER Integration Demonstration Projects.  The proceeding includes opportunity for public comment, as well as a stakeholder workshop scheduled for October 5.

Ultimately, Connecticut's electric distribution companies will propose specific demonstration projects for approval first by DEEP, then by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority or PURA.  Much emphasis has been placed on energy storage systems as a likely beneficiary of the program.  Other grid-side system enhancements could include distribution system automation and controls, intelligent field systems, advanced distribution system metering, communication, and systems that enable two-way power flow.  DEEP has until January 1, 2017 to evaluate the approved proposals and report to the state's legislative committee with jurisdiction over energy.

Energy Dept 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review

The U.S. Department of Energy has released its second Quadrennial Technology Review, a 505-page report describing the nation’s energy landscape and the dramatic changes that have taken place over the last four years.

The 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review examines the current status of energy technologies and research opportunities to advance them in addition to key enabling science and energy capabilities.  The updated report comes four years after the Energy Department's original Quadrennial Technology Review, issued in 2011.

The 2015 report notes, "The last four years have been defined by dramatic change in the nation’s energy landscape." Huge growth in domestic production of oil and natural gas has made the U.S. the world leader in combined oil and natural gas production for the last three consecutive years. Wind energy capacity has increased by 65 percent and wind energy generation has nearly doubled; solar capacity has increased 9 fold and solar photovoltaic generation over tenfold; old, inefficient power plants are being replaced by cleaner, more efficient ones; transportation efficiencies continue to improve.

It also highlights the Energy Department's view of "the most promising research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) opportunities across energy technologies to effectively address the nation's energy needs. Specifically, this analysis identifies the important technology RDD&D opportunities across energy supply and end use in working toward a clean energy economy in the United States."  Individual chapters focus on specific technology types, including grid modernization, clean power, buildings, manufacturing, fuels, and transportation. 

The report also draws some overarching conclusions:

• Energy systems are increasingly interconnected through the internet and other technologies, which could enable new paradigms for cost and emissions reduction. 
• Increasingly diverse options are available to meet the nation’s energy needs is increasing, creating a more dependable and flexible energy system for consumers.
• Substantial energy efficiency opportunities remain untapped.
• More research and development could lead to innovation and breakthroughs in how to deliver clean energy cheaper and faster.

NYISO solar study announced

Solar power is booming in the U.S. -- but how will growth in solar photovoltaic generating capacity affect the electricity grid?  The operator of the state of New York's electric grid has announced a study of the potential for growth in solar power resources to determine their impact on grid operations over the next 15 years.

Solar panels recently developed in a farm field in Massachusetts.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) operates New York State's high-voltage transmission network, runs the state's wholesale electricity markets.  NYISO also evaluates trends in utility infrastructure development and usage, and what changes in these patterns imply for future infrastructure needs.

One such trend is the recent rapid growth in installed solar electric generating capacity.  In New York, a state government initiative known as NY-Sun aims to reduce solar installation costs by stimulating demand and increasing the number of solar PV systems installed in the state.  The NY-Sun program envisions the installation of more than 3,000 megawatts of customer-sited solar capacity by 2023, supported by about $150 million in annual state funding for solar PV projects.  Already, in the first two years of NY-Sun, a total of 316 megawatts of solar electric has been installed or is under contract.

Unlike standalone utility-scale solar development, the solar buildout directly triggered by the NY-Sun program will occur “behind the meter” — that is, on the customer's side of the utility meter, as opposed to a typical power plant sited remotely from customer load.  Nevertheless, increased consumption of power produced by distributed generation might affect NYISO's load forecasts or grid operations.  So too might the collective impacts of many generators with variable but correlated output.

To prepare for this future, NYISO has announced a "solar study" to evaluate the growing impact of sun-powered generation.  The study will focus on the following objectives:

• Developing solar forecasting tools and preparing 15-year forecasts of solar PV capacity for each of the 11 load zones in New York State
• Researching how other independent system operators and regional transmission organizations have integrated solar resources into their grids
• Evaluating solar generation variability and its impact on customer load served by the NYS electric systems.
• Reviewing operational impacts of various levels of solar and wind resources.

The results of NYISO's solar study are expected to be released in a report later this year.

House subcommittee considers reliability draft

A congressional committee is considering legislation to assure reliability and security of the U.S. electricity grid.  The House Subcommittee on Energy and Power's discussion draft includes a series of provisions designed to harden the grid against disturbance.

To understand the discussion draft, you must first understand its context.  2015 is a time of great change for the U.S. electricity system.  The grid continues to shift away from coal-fired generation and towards use of natural gas and renewable energy sources.  New environmental regulations affecting power plants are taking effect.  Smart grid technology now enables real-time communication and coordination between supply and demand for electricity, but creates millions of potential access points for hackers to target the grid.  Meanwhile utilities plan to invest more than $60 billion in transmission infrastructure over the next decade. 

Faced with these shifts, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing today on a "discussion draft" of proposed measures to strengthen grid reliability, security and readiness to survive disturbance.  The discussion draft includes measures that would:

• Resolve conflicts between choosing whether to comply with an emergency order from the Department of Energy or violate environmental obligations;
• Require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to complete an independent reliability analysis of any proposed or final major federal rule that affects electric generating units;
• Direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and adopt procedures to enhance communication and coordination between governmental entities and the private sector to improve emergency response and recovery;
• Give the Secretary of Energy powers to address grid security emergencies, and facilitate information sharing;
• Require the Energy Department to submit a plan to Congress evaluating the feasibility of establishing a Strategic Transformer Reserve for the storage, in strategically-located facilities, of spare large power transformers in sufficient numbers to temporarily replace critically damaged large power transformers;
• Direct DOE to create a voluntary Cyber Sense program to identify cyber-secure products and technologies intended for use in the bulk-power system, like controls and SCADA systems;
• Directs state public utility commissions and utilities to improve grid resilience and promote investments in energy analytics technology to increase efficiencies and lower costs for ratepayers while strengthening reliability and security; and
• Require FERC to work with each regional transmission organization to encourage a diverse generation portfolio, long-term reliability and price certainty for customers, and enhanced performance assurance during peak period.

As noted in the opening statements of Chairmen Ed Whitfield and Fred Upton, elements from this discussion draft may be included in a bipartisan energy bill expected to emerge from the House committee later this session.

FERC authorizes mine drainage microhydro

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a hydropower license to a project whose turbines generate electricity from acid mine drainage. The micro-hydropower license issued to the Antrim Treatment Trust illustrates this unusual approach to the twin challenges of mine remediation and renewable energy.

The power of falling water, in the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire.

In the 1980s, Antrim Mining, Inc. operated a surface bituminous coal mine in Pennsylvania.  When water draining through the mine and into streams and rivers was found to exceed pollution limits, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania charged the company with violations of mining and reclamation law.  The charges led to a series of settlements through which Antrim agreed to improved water treatment facilities, including an off-the-grid hydroelectric facility.  This micro-hydro plant would be powered by treated effluent flowing downhill out of lagoons.  Antrim created the Antrim Treatment Trust to manage treatment of the mine water in 1991, then went out of business.

In an attempt to reduce the cost of treating the site's severe acid mine drainage, the Babb Creek Watershed Association identified micro-hydropower as an option for the site.  In 2008, the association received an Energy Harvest Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.  This $428,710 award was designed to support the installation of two hydroelectric turbines on the treatment plant's discharge, which was completed in 2012.

While the Federal Power Act requires most hydropower projects to secure a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, some off-grid hydropower projects that do not use the waters of the United States do not require licensure.  In 2010, the Antrim Treatment Trust filed a Declaration of
Intent for a 40-kilowatt grid-connected project, but quickly revised its project to be off-grid after the Commission issued an order finding that a license was required for the grid-connected project.  Once the project was off-grid, the Commission ruled that no license was required.

The Antrim treatment plant seems to have then operated one turbine, but left the second turbine non-operational. A 2012 article in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette suggested that with both turbines running and selling power into the electricity grid, the treatment plant could cut $12,000 in annual power costs and make $10,000 per year in new revenue.  But this could require a FERC license, because the project would become connected to the utility grid.

The Trust appears to have decided that these economics were worth pursuing, because in 2013 it filed an application for a project license for a 40-kilowatt project.  In the application, Antrim Trust proposed to bring a second identical turbine (currently in place but non-operational) online by installing additional indoor wiring with appurtenances within the existing powerhouse and treatment plant, and operate both turbines as a grid-connected project using the treated and/or untreated water.

As licensed, the Commission estimates the annual cost to develop and maintain the proposed 40-kW project is $9,356 or $37.42/megawatt-hour (MWh).  The project will generate an estimated average of 250 MWh of energy annually.  Based on Commission staff’s view of the alternative cost of power ($56.93/MWh), the total value of the project’s power is $14,233 in 2013 dollars.  To determine whether the proposed project is currently economically beneficial, staff subtracts the project’s cost from the value of the project’s power. Therefore, in the first year of operation, the project is expected to cost $4,877 or $19.51/MWh less than the likely alternative cost of power - demonstrating economic benefit.

Micro-hydropower projects can make economic sense in some mine drainage situations and other places where water treatment is required and a suitable vertical drop or pressure is available.  In Antrim's case, the project's success can partially be explained by the existence and purpose of the Trust, as well as the DEP grant to support project construction.  If treated and untreated mine drainage can be used to generate hydroelectricity, what other unusual sources of power will arise?

FERC Order No. 784 boosts energy storage

Energy storage - the ability to store electricity and deliver it to the grid as needed - has the potential to create great value for society.  New technologies, ranging from batteries to mechanical flywheels, are expanding options for energy storage.  Now, a federal rule issued last week known as Order No. 784 significantly expands opportunities for energy storage providers to capitalize on these advances.

Traditionally, electricity has been difficult to store.  While society has been able to generate electricity for over a century, technologies to store that electricity once it has been generated have been elusive.  As a result, electric grid operators have needed to balance the supply and demand for electricity in real-time, leading to costly inefficiencies like the continual need to ramp generators up and down.  To keep the grid balanced, grid operators rely on so-called "ancillary services" like regulation and frequency response made possible by fine-tuning generators' output -- or now by energy storage technologies.

Despite recent federal rulings like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order No. 755 enabling enhanced compensation for energy storage, the market for energy storage has been restricted by regulation.  Until last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission restricted third parties from selling ancillary services at market-based rates to public utility transmission providers under a 1999 ruling known as the Avista order.  Under Avista, transmission customers had two choices for how to procure their share of the grid's ancillary services.  First, customers could purchase ancillary services from their local public utility.  Second, customers could self-supply regulation and frequency response services - but could only do so from resources deemed comparable to those used by their public utility.  This restriction stripped away the benefit of self-supplying ancillary services because customers couldn't tailor their purchase of regulation and frequency response services to their own needs, but rather had to buy services based on their transmission provider's overall resource mix.  For example, customers were powerless to choose resources that could respond more quickly or more accurately than those used by their utility, meaning customers faced the risk of buying too much - or too little - ancillary services.

Order No. 784 significantly reforms the Commission's ancillary service regulations.  By November, public utilities must take into account the speed and accuracy of regulation resources, which opens the door for greater efficiency in transmission customers' purchase of regulation resources.  For example, Order No. 784 allows customers to save money by buying a smaller amount of faster or more accurate energy storage resources.

This flexibility creates a premium value for providers of these fast or accurate energy storage solutions.  Order No. 784 also eases the barriers for third-party entry into ancillary service markets, and revises accounting and reporting requirements to improve market transparency and better account for public utilities' use of energy storage devices.

Order No. 784 creates significant opportunities for utility customers, as it opens the door for lower-cost and more precise ancillary services.  The order also creates opportunities for innovative companies developing and implementing energy storage technologies like batteries, compressed air, and flywheels, as Order No. 784 both increases consumer demand for these technologies and reduces developers' barriers to entry into the markets.

For more information about Order No. 784 and the opportunities it creates, contact Todd Griset at Preti Flaherty at 207-623-5300.

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.