Holyoke utility imposes moratorium on new gas service, citing pipeline constraints

The municipal utility serving the town that hosts the headquarters for the operator of the regional electric grid has informed its customers that the utility “is unable to accommodate new natural gas service requests due to the lack of natural gas availability in the region.” Holyoke Gas & Electric adds, “Recent proposals that would increase natural gas capacity in the region have been met with opposition, and the current pipeline constraints are causing significant adverse environmental and economic impacts on the region's ratepayers."

Holyoke Gas & Electric is a consumer-owned municipal utility established in 1902 through the purchase of a gas and electric plant from the Holyoke Water Power Company. According to the utility, the town saw ownership of a municipal utility "as a way to stabilize rates and keep local control over their energy services." As a municipal utility, Holyoke Gas & Electric is operated as a not-for-profit concern, and is owned by the community it serves. The utility cites public power advantages from this structure including operating in the local public interest, with local control over rates and services, local ownership, and reliance on local employees. In 1999, the utility acquired the Holyoke Dam, the city's canal system, and the remainder of the Holyoke Water Power Company's assets. The utility touts its ability to produce over 65% of its electricity needs from these renewable hydropower resources and cites "some of the lowest utility rates in New England."

Holyoke's Gas Division provides natural gas service through about 9,900 meters in Holyoke and Southampton. But on January 28, 2019, the utility gave its customers notice that it had placed a moratorium on most new natural gas service installations. According to that notice, the utility's natural gas customers are served by an interstate pipeline "which has become severely constrained due to a dramatic increase in demand over the last two decades," with "no corresponding increase in pipeline capacity to deliver additional supply to the region." As a result of significant growth in demand for natural gas by Holyoke's customers, HG&E said it is "forced to impose a moratorium on new natural gas connections until the capacity issue is addressed."

The utility further explained, "While inexpensive natural gas has never been more plentiful in the United States, there is insufficient pipeline capacity in our region to deliver additional load. Recent proposals that would increase natural gas capacity in the region have been met with opposition, and the current pipeline constraints are causing significant adverse environmental and economic impacts on the region's ratepayers." In its notice, the utility noted that due to the lack of natural gas during peak demand periods, "more electric generators are forced to switch to oil, while coal generators are called upon to operate, causing significant spikes in greenhouse gas emissions." Regional electric grid operator ISO New England, which is headquartered in Holyoke, reported that during a 15-day cold spell in January 2018, over two million barrels of oil were burned to generate electricity due to the lack of natural gas, more than the total amount of oil burned in 2017.

Beyond increased emissions, the utility also used ISO-NE data to show how "the lack of natural gas has a significant impact on energy costs throughout New England." Citing data from ISO-NE, the utility observed that during the two-week period from December 26, 2017 to January 8, 2018, electricity prices experienced an "approximately $700 million increase in energy costs for New England ratepayers compared to the prior year."

Holyoke Gas & Electric says it is working with gas utility Columbia Gas of Massachusetts to explore a solution involving system upgrades in other communities to "address local capacity issues, which will help reduce regional carbon emissions, improve reliability, and support local economic development." In the meantime, HG&E says its moratorium on new natural gas connections will remain in place "until the capacity issue is addressed."

Energy issues in Maine's 2019 legislative requests

With the 129th Maine Legislature convened for its first regular session, the Office of the Revisor of Statutes has released a list of the titles of proposed legislation timely submitted by legislators. While the text of most of these legislative requests has not yet been publicly released, the preliminary list of working titles of over 2,000 precloture legislator bills suggests the scope of issues that will come before the Maine State Legislature in 2019. On energy matters, themes emerging from this list include reforms to Maine's renewable portfolio standard; efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; incentives for microgrids, renewable energy and electric vehicles; and changes to energy efficiency standards for most newly constructed buildings.

Based on the working titles and legislative committee assignments, a number of bills will propose changes to Maine's renewable portfolio standard or other laws regarding renewable energy. Among others, these bills could include:

• LR 26, An Act To Update Maine's Renewable Energy Policy (Spkr. Gideon of Freeport)
• LR 82, An Act To Update the State's Renewable Energy Goals (Rep. Berry of Bowdoinham)
• LR 119, Resolve, To Establish a Working Group To Develop a Stand-alone Renewable Energy Certificate Program for the Biomass Industry (Sen. Carpenter of Aroostook)
• LR 403, An Act To Diversify Maine's Energy Portfolio with Renewable Energy (Rep. Hubbell of Bar Harbor)
• LR 845, An Act To Encourage the Use of Renewable Energy (Sen. Lawrence of York)
• LR 872, An Act To Extend to December 31, 2020 the Deadline for Community-based Renewable Energy Projects To Become Operational (Rep. Higgins of Dover-Foxcroft)
• LR 1034, An Act To Establish a Green New Deal for Maine (Rep. Maxmin of Nobleboro)
• LR 1123, An Act To Repeal the 100 Megawatt Limit on Power Generation (Rep. Hanley of Pittston)
• LR 1405, An Act To Clarify the Definition of "Renewable Capacity Resource" (Rep. Babine of Scarborough)
• LR 1431, An Act To Study Transmission Solutions To Enable Renewable Energy Investment in the State (Rep. Berry of Bowdoinham)
• LR 1470, An Act To Modernize Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard (Sen. Lawrence of York)
• LR 1558, An Act To Increase Maine-based Energy Sources (Pres. Jackson of Aroostook)
• LR 1616, An Act To Reform Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard (Sen. Vitelli of Sagadahoc)
• LR 1803, An Act To Benefit Maine Consumers, Businesses and Communities through Expanded Renewable Energy (Sen. Dow of Lincoln)

Other bill titles suggest possible proposed changes to other aspects of Maine's renewable policy, such as Maine's version of net metering or rules governing community solar projects:

• LR 15, An Act To Eliminate Gross Metering (Rep. Berry of Bowdoinham)
• LR 299, An Act To Replace Net Energy Billing with a Market-based Mechanism (Rep. O'Connor of Berwick)
• LR 404, An Act To Protect Ratepayers from Gross-metering Costs (Rep. Hubbell of Bar Harbor)
• LR 535, An Act To Eliminate the Cap on Solar Energy Generation Farms (Sen. Miramant of Knox)
• LR 536, An Act To Require Transmission and Distribution Utilities To Purchase Electricity from Renewable Resources at Certain Prices (Sen. Miramant of Knox) 
• LR 1259, An Act To Eliminate Restrictions on Community Solar Projects (Rep. Higgins of Dover-Foxcroft)
• LR 1621, An Act To Expand Community-based Solar Energy in Maine (Sen. Sanborn of Cumberland)

Several more bill titles appear designed to expand opportunities for microgrids or other local private sales of electricity:

• LR 18, An Act To Allow Microgrids That Are in the Public Interest (Rep. Devin of Newcastle)
• LR 213, An Act To Authorize Businesses Located Adjacent to Electric Power Generators To Obtain Power Directly (Rep. Campbell of Orrington)
• LR 1464, An Act To Allow the Direct Sale of Electricity (Sen. Woodsome of York)

Beyond a direct focus on renewable energy, several bill titles address Maine's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or efforts to reduce fossil fuel use:

• LR 254, An Act To Develop a State Energy Plan To Provide a Pathway to a Fossil-free Energy Portfolio (Rep. Devin of Newcastle)
• LR 1493, An Act To Ensure the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Trust Fund Continues To Promote Energy Efficiency and Benefit Maine Ratepayers (Rep. Wadsworth of Hiram)

At least three bill titles call for increased incentives for electric vehicles:

• LR 862, An Act To Provide Purchase Rebates for Battery Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (Rep. Ingwersen of Arundel)
• LR 1380, An Act To Encourage Municipalities, State Agencies, Colleges and Universities To Adopt Electric Vehicles (Rep. Ingwersen of Arundel)
• LR 1687, An Act To Create an Electric Vehicle Tax Credit (Sen. Chenette of York) 

At least five bill titles address the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code:

• LR 561, An Act To Amend the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (Rep. Kessler of South Portland)
• LR 537, An Act To Strengthen the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (Rep. Caiazzo of Scarborough)
• LR 619, An Act Regarding the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (Rep. Ingwersen of Arundel)
• LR 866, An Act To Amend the Laws Governing the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (Rep. Rykerson of Kittery)
• LR 1743, An Act Regarding the Application and Administration of the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (Rep. Fecteau of Biddeford) 

Experience suggests that most of these legislative requests will result in printed bills, and will be given public hearings before legislative committees before votes by the House and Senate.

Energy and electricity cooperatives on the rise?

Could energy cooperatives or other alternatives to investor-owned utilities play a larger role in connecting consumers with electricity, heating fuel and other forms of energy? Emerging technologies like microgrids and increased interest in decentralization and local governance could support a growth in consumer-owned utilities or similar cooperative structures.

When used as an adjective, "cooperative" generally means "involving mutual assistance in working toward a common goal."  In its noun form, "cooperative" can mean "a farm, business, or other organization that is owned and run jointly by its members, who share the profits or benefits."  Other definitions arise in the specific contexts of electricity and other forms of energy, but the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association cites seven core principles and values common to all cooperatives: open and voluntary membership; democratic member control; members' economic participation; autonomy and independence; education, training, and information; cooperation among cooperatives; and concern for community.  

Today in the U.S., more than 900 cooperatives in 47 states provide electric service to an estimated 42 million people in 47 states.  According to a trade association, distribution and generation and transmission cooperatives collectively own assets worth $175 billion, invest about $13 billion annually in new plant equipment, and employ 71,000 people in the U.S.  Many cooperatives serve relatively rural areas that were not previously served by other utilities, although some have grown within other utilities' territories.  This local model stands in contrast to investor-owned utilities, many of which are owned by large national or global corporations whose ultimate parent companies are based overseas.

Cooperatives or similar organizations are already part of many sectors of the economy besides electricity, including housing, financial services, agriculture, retail, fisheries, and manufacturing.  Values like local self-determination, inclusion and fair dealing can align well with the cooperative form.  Many states recognize the rights of consumers of various products or services to participate in cooperatives.  For example, a Maine statute allows any 3 or more natural persons to incorporate a consumer cooperative association to "engage in any one or more lawful mode or modes of acquiring, producing, building, operating, manufacturing, furnishing, exchanging or distributing any type or types of property, commodities, goods or services for the primary and mutual benefit of the patrons of the association, or their patrons, if any, as ultimate consumers."  This concept can broadly be applied to electricity, oil, wood, or other forms of energy.

Many states have enacted specific laws adapting electricity generation and distribution to the cooperative model.  For example, Maine law allows the creation of rural electric cooperatives, which are cooperative nonprofit membership corporations established for the purpose of supplying electricity and promoting and extending the use of electricity.  Such a cooperative can have powers including the ability to acquire electric transmission and distribution lines or systems, electric generating plants, dams, or other property determined necessary, convenient or appropriate to accomplish the purpose for which the cooperative is organized.  If it distributes and supplies gas or electric transmission and distribution service, the cooperative may be treated as a public utility under state law.  If another public utility is already furnishing or is authorized to furnish a similar service in or to a municipality, Public Utilities Commission approval would be required before the cooperative may furnish that service.

Cooperatives are already engaged in the utility sector as one form of consumer-owned utility.  Other alternatives to investor-owned utilities exist -- for example, municipal power districts or municipally owned utilities exist in some places such as Massachusetts, or public utility districts in Washington.  Whether under a cooperative or municipal form, these alternatives can be aligned with values like local self-determination and energy sovereignty -- for example, the right to choose one's own mix of energy supply resources, or manage more closely for local values.  In some cases, they can also deliver essential services like heat and power at a lower cost or with improved value (such as enhanced reliability or environmental performance) compared to traditional utility systems.

As communities look to the future, cooperatives or other alternatives to investor-owned utilities may be increasingly attractive by virtue of their alignment with the local interests consuming services like electricity.  If consumers perceive investor-owned utilities as not responsive to consumer needs, the cooperative form could continue to make gains in some areas, for example in the form of energy cooperative microgrids.  The cooperative form has significant potential to continue to expand into the energy sector.

RC Byrd hydro project licensed at Army Corps locks and dam

Federal hydropower regulators have issued an original license to an Ohio city to construct, operate, and maintain a 50-megawatt hydroelectric project at an existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lock and dam site.  If developed as licensed, the City of Wadsworth, Ohio's Robert C. Byrd Hydroelectric Project will join other projects focused on adding hydroelectric generation to existing dams.

The Army Corps owns 21 locks and dams on the Ohio River, which it operates for commercial and recreational navigation.  These facilities include the RC Byrd Locks and Dam, originally built in the 1930s and renovated within the past 25 years.

On March 28, 2011, the City of Wadsworth, Ohio, applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license to construct, operate, and maintain the Robert C. Byrd Hydroelectric Project No. 12796.  As proposed by the city, the project would include new intake and tailrace structures along with a powerhouse holding two turbine generator units with a total installed capacity of 50 megwatts, but not the existing Army Corps dam.

On August 30, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its Order Issuing Original License for the RC Byrd Project.  The license, which authorizes the installation of 50 MW of new, renewable energy generation capacity, requires a number of measures to protect environmental resources at the project, including measures proposed by the licensee as well as additional terms and conditions developed by Commission staff and other agencies. 

According to the licensing order, the project will generate approximately 266,000 megawatt-hours per year, with a levelized annual cost of constructing and operating the project of about $40,586,280, or $152.58/MWh.  While the Commission found this to be more expensive than the cost of alternative power in the first year of licensure, the Commission also noted "that hydroelectric projects offer unique operational benefits to the electric utility system."  These ancillary service benefits "include the ability to help maintain the stability of a power system, such as by quickly adjusting power output to respond to rapid changes in system load; and to respond rapidly to a major utility system or regional blackout by providing a source of power to help restart the fossil-fuel generating stations and put them back on line."

Consistent with the Commission's general policy regarding license term for projects located on a federal dam, the Commission issued the RC Byrd Project license for a term of 50 years, the maximum allowable under the Federal Power Act.

If developed as licensed, the RC Byrd Project would be part of a trend toward adding hydroelectric generating facilities to existing dams owned by the Army Corps or other dam owners.  Congress and the Commission, as well as state agencies, have expressed support for adding hydropower to existing dams and lock structures.

Massachusetts develops next solar incentive

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) is designing a new solar incentive program to encourage the continued development of solar renewable energy generating sources by residential, commercial, governmental and industrial electricity customers, based on a state law enacted this spring. The so-called "next solar initiative" program could affect the pace of solar photovoltaic project development in Massachusetts, as policymakers seek a smooth transition from the current SREC II program as it reaches full capacity.

On April 11, 2016, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law An Act Relative to Solar Energy, also known as Chapter 75 of the Acts of 2016.  The law preserved and expanded net metering, preserving the value of that policy for projects developed by residential, small commercial, municipal and government customers.

As described by the Baker administration, the law also allows DOER and the Department of Public Utilities to "gradually transition the solar industry to a more self-sustaining model." In particular, section 11 of the act directed DOER to "develop a statewide solar incentive program to encourage the continued development of solar renewable energy generating sources by residential, commercial, governmental and industrial electricity customers throughout the commonwealth."

The law prescribed twelve requisite characteristics of the solar incentive program, but left the creation of rules and regulations to DOER.  Some criteria are process-oriented, such as that the program "promotes the orderly transition to a stable and self-sustaining solar market at a reasonable cost to ratepayers," or considers underlying system costs, environmental benefits, energy demand reduction and other avoided costs provided by solar renewable energy generating facilities.

Other criteria define structural requirements for the program, such as that it "relies on market-based mechanisms or price signals as much as possible to set incentive levels," "differentiates incentive levels to support diverse installation types and sizes that provide unique benefits," and "features a known or easily estimated budget to achieve program goals through use of a declining adjustable block incentive, a competitive procurement model, tariff or other declining incentive framework."  The law also requires the program to promote investor confidence through long-term incentive revenue certainty and market stability.

After the solar bill's enactment, DOER held two public listening sessions, and solicited comments on the development of the "next solar incentive" through June 30, 2016.  Many commenters expressed support for a continuation of the SREC framework, such as "SREC III."  Other comments focused on locational issues, such as proposing policies to deter the development of projects located on farmland or other undeveloped "greenfield" sites.

DOER is expected to release a first draft of its next solar incentive program this summer.

Edgartown's Muskeget tidal project faces questions

A municipal tidal power project proposed for the Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard faces federal deadlines if its licensing process is to continue.  The Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project, proposed by the Town of Edgartown, is seeking a pilot project license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- but faces questions from Commission staff.

On February 1, 2011, the Town of Edgartown filed, pursuant to the Commission’s pilot licensing procedures, a draft license application for the proposed Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project.  The project would feature an array of 14 marine hydrokinetic tidal turbines, with a commercial generating capacity of 5 megawatts or less.

But that license application remains incomplete.  On April 1, 2011, Commission staff issued a letter requesting that Edgartown provide additional information, including details about the proposed project and multiple plans, drawings, and reports.  Over the ensuing years, Edgartown filed some responsive information, but according to the Commission, Edgartown did not file the remaining information by the deadline or provide a schedule indicating when the information would be filed after the deadline was missed.

Over two years after the deadline, on April 21, 2016, Commission staff issued a letter requiring Edgartown to show cause, within 30 days, why Commission staff should not terminate the prefiling licensing process for the project.  According to the Commission, Edgartown did not respond, but Congressman William Keating asked the Commission to extend the show cause deadline until the Massachusetts Clean Energy Commission decides whether to award the project a grant.

In a June 2 letter, Commission staff directed Edgartown to, within 30 days, provide a schedule specifying when it will file with the Commission each of the outstanding items requested in Commission staff’s April 1, 2011 letter.  The letter says, "Upon receipt of this information, Commission staff will make a determination on how to proceed with the incomplete application for the Muskeget Channel Tidal Energy Project."  For now, the prelicensing process for the Muskeget tidal project remains pending.

Maine community solar farms

As the Maine legislature considers a bill to change the state's solar energy laws, opportunities for customers to participate in community solar farms are drawing interest.  As a result of this interest, some of the legal structures within which Maine community solar projects operate may change.

Community solar farms offer one model for connecting electricity consumers with solar power.  While there are various definitions of what qualifies a project as "community solar", most concepts feature a solar-electric system that provides power or financial benefit to, or is owned by, multiple community members.  This shared ownership, or shared benefit, is key to the community renewable energy model.

The Solar Energy Industries Association notes 25 states with at least one community solar project on-line, with 91 projects and 102 cumulative megawatts installed as of early 2016.  According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, interest in the community solar segment flows from "the recognition that the on-site solar market comprises only one part of the total market for solar energy."  Renters, those with shaded or otherwise unsuitable roofs, or anyone choosing not to install a residential system at home might prefer to invest in an off-site, shared ownership solar project.

State laws or regulations typically shape how customers can participate in community solar projects.  For example, Maine's current community solar model relies on the state's shared ownership net energy billing regulations. The Maine Public Utilities Commission rules governing "net energy billing" require investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities to offer net energy billing to any customer of a transmission and distribution utility that owns or has the legal rights to energy generated using an eligible facility.

The current Maine rules allow up to 10 customer accounts to be netted against a commonly-owned eligible generating facility located in the same utility service territory.  These accounts must belong to "shared ownership customers" -- customers that have an ownership interest (or legally enforceable rights and obligations) in the generating facility.  Participating customers must have joint responsibility for the costs of the shared ownership facility, as well as the rights to the benefits of the project's output in proportion to the cost responsibilities.  The local public utility will allocate the project's generation output among the participants, along with any banked credits, based on each customer's ownership interest in the project. 

Under these shared ownership net metering regulations, a solar project in South Paris developed in 2014 became Maine's first shared ownership community solar farm, and a project in Edgecomb became Maine's second operating community solar farm in 2015.  Other community solar projects are under development.

But when community solar projects rely on state laws, they may be affected by changes in law.  The Maine legislature is now considering a bill that would change Maine's solar energy law.  LD 1649 would largely replace a billing treatment called net metering with a series of long-term contracts and utility procurement orders.  It would establish a procurement target for large-scale community solar distributed generation resources of 45 megawatts by 2022.  Under this model, project sponsors would propose projects (up to 5 megawatts each) and could bid for long-term contracts to sell the project output to the local utility.  Project sponsors would recruit "subscribers" to take proportional interests in the resource, with each subscription sized to represent at least one kilowatt of the resource's generating capacity. Each subscriber would receive a bill credit based on his or her percentage interest in the project's production.

This model could enable more than 10 customer accounts to participate in a shared ownership solar project, which would address the limit on how many customers may participate in a community solar project under current regulations.  This could enable an expansion of shared-ownership solar, albeit under a model that relies on power sales to the local utility, instead of self-consumption or net metering.  But LD 1649 could also have an impact on those community solar projects already operating or under development, because it would effectively end net metering and offer only limited grandfathering of existing projects.

One alternative that could support community solar without impacting existing projects would be to expand the net metering paradigm, for example by allowing municipalities or groups of consumers to participate in larger projects that could offset more customer accounts.  For example, Massachusetts encourages municipal participation in solar projects by allowing governmental entities to net meter larger projects than individual customers.  Maine could adopt a similar model, expanding opportunities for municipally owned or shared ownership solar projects.

The Maine legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology held a public hearing on LD 1649 on March 16.  The committee is expected to give the bill further consideration this month.