Maine PUC inquires into storm costs and grid resilience

Citing "increasing storm frequency and severity, and escalating storm restoration costs", Maine utility regulators have opened an inquiry to obtain information about the problem and how it could be addressed.

On July 25, 2024, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued a Notice of Inquiry in docket 2024-00191. According to that notice:

Maine is experiencing increasing storm frequency and severity, and escalating storm restoration costs. While utilities are developing their grid plans and doing the vulnerability assessments and preparing resiliency/mitigation plans, the Commission opens this inquiry to look for some shorter-term efforts to reduce the impact of storm damage to the system and study ways in which Maine’s electric utilities may more proactively address escalating storm costs.

The PUC's notice includes a list of questions and prompts for comment by September 4, 2024. Some questions ask how other states are addressing storm- and resilience-related costs. Others seek information on how Maine utilities might behave differently -- for example, leveraging data systems to prioritize resilience upgrades, shifting away from wood poles, or changing tree trimming protocols and other vegetation management programs. The questions also ask about what "resilience" means and how it can be quantified.

Under PUC practice, an inquiry is a relatively informal proceeding initiated by the PUC to gather information. After the PUC collects information through an inquiry, it can use what it learned to inform a subsequent adjudicatory proceeding (like an investigation) or a rulemaking. 

Outside this inquiry, a recently enacted law requires each of Maine's investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities to develop "a 10-year integrated grid plan designed to improve system reliability and resiliency and enable the cost-effective achievement of the State’s greenhouse gas reduction obligations and climate policies." The utilities must file their proposed grid plans by January 12, 2026.

A separate statute requires each utility to file a 10-year climate change protection plan that includes specific actions for addressing the expected effects of climate change on the utility's assets needed to transmit and distribute electricity to its customers. The first climate change protection plans were due on December 31, 2023, and must be updated every three years.

GAO report on electric grid geomagnetic disturbances

A report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that U.S. and Canadian electricity suppliers have taken steps to prepare for potential electromagnetic disruptions to the electric grid such as from solar storms or high-altitude nuclear detonations -- but that more research is needed on both geomagnetic disturbances and high-altitude electromagnetic pulses.

Under some circumstances, a severe solar storm or high-altitude nuclear blast could damage the U.S. electric grid and potentially cause extensive outages. Federal energy regulators have used both regulatory and more informal collaborative approaches to address the threat to the electric grid posed by electromagnetic pulses and geomagnetic disturbances. Regulatory approaches to electromagnetic disturbance readiness include mandatory reliability standards adopted by electric reliability organization NERC, which require some electricity suppliers to assess their vulnerability to extreme solar storms, and developing procedures for responding to grid security emergencies.

In this context, the Government Accountability Office was asked to review electricity industry actions to prepare for and mitigate electromagnetic risks. Its 95-page report, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Electricity Suppliers Have Taken Actions to Address Electromagnetic Risks, and Additional Research is Ongoing, examines topics including the degree to which U.S. and Canadian electricity generation and transmission owners and operators have identified information about the effects on the grid caused by geomagnetic disturbances and high-altitude electromagnetic pulses (HEMP), steps some suppliers have taken to protect against GMD and HEMP, and opportunities for U.S. suppliers to recover costs for protecting against GMD and HEMP.

According to the report, there is "general agreement that more research is needed on both GMD and HEMP." Risks identified include potential voltage instability leading to collapse of the bulk power system and blackouts, as well as possible damage to key system components. But more information is needed, according to the report -- especially on HEMP effects, given that previous studies have focused on impacts to military equipment as opposed to the commercial electric grid.

The cost of addressing reliability concerns can be significant. The GAO report describes some suppliers' reports "that costs they have incurred to protect against GMD and HEMP have been relatively small so far and they expect to recover those costs through customer rates." But the report warns that suppliers could face future increased costs, as a second regulatory standard phases in through 2022. For example, the report cites one supplier serving about 4.5 million retail customers as estimating "the cost of hardening a planned control center against HEMP to be at least $10 million." GAO calculated that fully passing this cost on to customers in a single year would add $2 to the average customer ’s electric bill for that year.

While regulated U.S. suppliers may be able to recover GMD protection costs through rates, the report notes that recovery is less certain for protection against HEMP because less is known about HEMP risks. The report also presages challenges for any kind of reliability-driven cost recovery for independent owners of power plants, who must recover reliability improvement costs through their sales of electricity without assurances about market prices.

Maine utility storm damage and response in question

As Maine recovers from widespread power outages following a storm, what will the event mean for how its public utilities design, operate, and maintain their electric grids?

On October 30, 2017, a storm brought winds and heavy rain to much of New England. In Maine, about 500,000 people lost power, with the state's largest utility Central Maine Power Company reporting the largest number of outages in the company's history and Emera Maine reporting the most widespread outages since 1998.

The utilities had taken some steps to prepare for the storm, describing advance planning to "ensure that adequate resources are in place to restore power outages that might occur as a result of the storm." After the storm passed, line crews from out of state arrived to provide mutual aid. Maine Governor Paul LePage issued an emergency proclamation to allow drivers of electrical line repair vehicles to operate additional hours during storm restoration efforts. By November 5 -- about one week after the storm -- the utility reported that it had restored power to about 99 percent of customers who had lost service, with about 6,000 customers left to go.

A convoy of utility repair trucks after the storm.

Now that the lights are back on in most homes and businesses, most people have cleaned spoiled food from refrigerators and freezers and are back at work. But the storm and outage have thrown a spotlight on the reliability of Maine's electricity grid, and utility preparation and response to storms. Some customers are complaining, pointing to the loss to the state economy caused by the blackouts, on top of personal inconvenience. As with past storms and outages such as the 1998 New England ice storm, preparation, operational response, and communications with customers and policymakers are focal points for complaint.

Some of the present complaints focus on the fact that what has been called the worst power outage in Maine history comes just two years after CMP completed its $1.4 billion Maine Power Reliability Program transmission upgrades. Other complaints focus on the utility's communications with customers -- while CMP's website provided real-time outage information during the storm including estimates on when service will be restored, the Portland Press Herald reported that CMP has acknowledged problems with the web listings, causing customer frustration over inaccurate information.

The Bangor Daily News cites a Maine Public Utilities Commission spokesman as saying that, following further information gathering, the regulatory agency may consider changes to regulation to better hold transmission and distribution utilities accountable for outages and storm restoration efforts. Maine law also allows the Commission to institute a complaint or investigation proceeding into any matter affecting utility service, and requires the Commission to investigate if ten or more aggrieved people file a complaint against a utility.

FERC grid reliability and resilience pricing questions

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

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

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

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

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

FERC proposes geomagnetic disturbance reliability standard

Is the U.S. electric grid ready for solar storms and other geomagnetic disturbances?  Today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed approving a new reliability standard for the grid to address its vulnerability to these hazards.

A utility substation near Treasureton in southeast Idaho.

Periodic activity on the Sun's surface sends powerful waves of energetic particles toward the Earth.  These solar events can distort the Earth's magnetic field, affecting the flow of electricity on Earth.  While serious geomagnetic disturbances are expected to be infrequent, they can cause blackouts and damage key utility infrastructure.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over the reliability of the U.S.'s bulk electric power system.  To this end, it has designated the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) as the nation's electric reliability organization.  In May 2013, FERC directed NERC to develop and submit new standards for protecting the grid against geomagnetic disturbances (Order No. 779). 

FERC and NERC have proceeded in a two-stage process.  First, in June 2014 FERC approved a standard on implementation of operating plans, procedures and processes to mitigate effects of geomagnetic disturbances (Order No. 797).

Reserved for the second stage were further requirements that transmission planners and owners assess the vulnerability of their systems to a theoretical benchmark event.  NERC subsequently proposed such a standard, calling for an evaluation of what would happen in a “one-in-100-year” benchmark event.

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued today, the FERC proposes to largely adopt NERC’s proposed second-stage standard.  The standard would require covered entities to have system models needed to complete vulnerability assessments, to have criteria for acceptable steady state voltage performance during a benchmark event, and to complete a vulnerability assessment once every 60 calendar months. If the assessment indicates that a system does not meet the performance requirements, the entity would have to develop a corrective action plan addressing how the requirements will be met.

The proposed rulemaking would direct NERC to further modify its standard to require that the study and benchmarking of geomagnetic disturbance events is based on a more complete set of data and a reasonable scientific and engineering approach.

Comments on today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are due 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Geomagnetic disturbances, and their impacts to the grid, are a hot topic in energy regulation at the present. States are considering laws regulating utility readiness for and response to geomagnetic disturbances; for example, next week the Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology will consider LD 1363, An Act To Secure the Maine Electrical Grid from Long-term Blackouts.

Sea level rise and coastal LNG terminals

Should federal agencies consider climate change and sea-level rise as they review the environmental impacts of liquefied natural gas terminals?

Yes, according to letters recently filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.  Last week the Columbia Law School center submitted comments on two cases involving applications to develop liquefied natural gas export facilities in Maine and Louisiana.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations, in approving an activity, the Commission must consider reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of that activity.  Each case targeted by the Sabin Center involves a proposal to develop facilities for the liquefaction and export of natural gas from coastal or riverine sites: 

• Downeast Liquefaction, LLC has proposed the Downeast LNG Import-Export Project, to be located in Robbinston, Maine.  The bi-directional terminal on the banks of the Passamaquoddy Bay would be capable of processing an average of approximately 300 MMcf per day of pipeline-quality natural gas (including fuel and inerts) in the liquefaction mode and 100 MMcf per day in the vaporization mode.

• Louisiana LNG Energy, LLC has proposed the Mississippi River LNG Project, to be located in Plaquemines Parish south of the Port of New Orleans.  The project would have an initial capacity of 2 million metric tonnes per annum (MTPA), with a targeted start-up in late 2017.

Procedurally, each of these cases is at the stage where the Commission solicits comment on the scope of issues it should include in its environmental review.  In similar letters filed in each docket (Downeast and Louisiana), the Sabin Center took no position on the export of liquefied natural gas or on whether the project should be approved. Instead, the center noticed that while the Commission's Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement included many important issues to consider, the notice did not identify the potential impact of climate change on the LNG project.

Specifically, the Sabin Center's letters note that sea level rise, and an associated increase in flooding and storm surges, may pose a significant risk due to the project sites' coastal location.  The letters argue that NEPA requires the Commission to assess the projected range of sea level rise and storm surge throughout the life of the projects and identify ways to prepare for climate change-related risks.  They also called for requiring the projects' design to incorporate an additional margin of safety, known as “freeboard,” to account for unanticipated risk factors that can contribute to flood heights, such as waves and the effect of development on ground water absorption.

Whether the Commission will agree with the Sabin Center remains to be seen.  As federal agencies issue permits for energy projects, they face increasing pressure from the public -- and presumably from the administration -- to consider the projects' broader implications for and from climate change.

Report: climate change poses risks to US energy sector

Climate change poses significant risks to U.S. energy infrastructure, and the reliability and cost of the services it enables, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The report - U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Report (4.2MB PDF) was developed as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to support national climate change adaptation planning and to advance the U.S. Department of Energy’s goal of promoting energy security. These efforts are embodied by the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force and Strategic Sustainability Planning process established under Executive Order 13514.

The report is predicated on the findings that the U.S. climate is changing, and that these changes impact energy resources and infrastructure. As the report states, "Climatic conditions are already affecting energy production and delivery in the United States, causing supply disruptions of varying lengths and magnitude and affecting infrastructure and operations dependent upon energy supply." The report provides over 30 recent examples of energy infrastructure adversely impacted by climate change-related events such as power plant outages due to high temperatures or low water availability, storm damage to transmission lines, oil wells, pipelines and generators, and flooding-related disruption of fuel transportation systems.

Building on these findings, the report identifies a broad set of risks posed by climate trends, including increasing temperatures, decreasing water availability, and increasing storms, sea level rise, and flooding, as well as the current and potential future impacts of these climate trends on the U.S. energy sector. According to the report, each of these trends will independently, and in some cases in combination, affect the ability of the United States to produce and transmit electricity from fossil, nuclear, and existing and emerging renewable energy sources. These changes are also projected to affect the nation’s demand for energy and its ability to access, produce, and distribute oil and natural gas.

In particular, significant risks identified include:

• Thermoelectric power generation facilities are at risk from decreasing water availability and increasing ambient air and water temperatures, which reduce the efficiency of cooling, increase the likelihood of exceeding water thermal intake or effluent limits that protect local ecology, and increase the risk of partial or full shutdowns of generation facilities
• Energy infrastructure located along the coast is at risk from sea level rise, increasing intensity of storms, and higher storm surge and flooding, potentially disrupting oil and gas production, refining, and distribution, as well as electricity generation and distribution
• Oil and gas production, including unconventional oil and gas production (which constitutes an expanding share of the nation’s energy supply) is vulnerable to decreasing water availability given the volumes of water required for enhanced oil recovery, hydraulic fracturing, and refining
• Renewable energy resources, particularly hydropower, bioenergy, and concentrating solar power can be affected by changing precipitation patterns, increasing frequency and intensity of droughts, and increasing temperatures
• Electricity transmission and distribution systems carry less current and operate less efficiently when ambient air temperatures are higher, and they may face increasing risks of physical damage from more intense and frequent storm events or wildfires
• Fuel transport by rail and barge is susceptible to increased interruption and delay during more frequent periods of drought and flooding that affect water levels in rivers and ports
• Onshore oil and gas operations in Arctic Alaska are vulnerable to thawing permafrost, which may cause damage to existing infrastructure and restrict seasonal access, while offshore operations could benefit from a longer sea ice-free season
• Increasing temperatures will likely increase electricity demand for cooling and decrease fuel oil and natural gas demand for heating

Looking on the brighter side, the report notes that while climate change will, on balance, create challenges and costs for the energy sector, there are potential benefits to the energy sector as well. Examples include reduced average heating loads during the winter in parts of the United States, such as New England, and the opening of new regions to offshore oil and gas exploration due to shrinking sea ice cover in the Arctic. The report also covers adaptation actions underway, as well as other major opportunities to prepare for climate change through adaptation. Nevertheless, on balance, the report finds that the magnitude of the challenge posed by climate change on an aging and already stressed U.S. energy system could outpace current adaptation efforts, unless a more comprehensive and accelerated approach is adopted. Will the U.S. follow that path? What measures will it include? Will it make a difference?

Obama's climate action plan

Today President Obama unveiled his climate change action plan.  The outline of his plan was set forth in a 21-page written document, couldpled with a speech delivered at Georgetown University and broadcast online at whitehouse.gov/live, presents his vision for a unilateral approach to controlling carbon emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change.

The Washington Monument.

President Obama's plan has three main focuses.  First, he proposed measures to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from domestic industry.  These measures include strict standards for carbon emissions from new and existing power plants, promoting investment in renewable energy, and improving energy efficiency in homes, businesses, and industry.  The plan calls for accelerated permitting and development of renewable electricity generation projects on federal lands ranging from Department of Defense properties to lands managed by the Department of the Interior.

Second, he proposed measures to prepare the country for the effects of climate change.  These measures include infrastructure improvements, such as preparing buildings and communities for sea level rise and more intense storms.  These measures are also designed to protect the economy and natural resources, for example conserving land and water resources, preparing for floods and drought, and managing agricultural sustainability.

Third, he called for the U.S. to lead international efforts to address global climate change.  Measures in this category include expanding international use of clean energy and energy efficiency technologies, negotiating global free trade in environmental services and goods, and strengthening global resilience to climate change.

While some of the measures are likely to find widespread support, others such as the power plant emissions standards are controversial.  The plan states that President Obama will issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to "work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.”  The standards, which may be put into place by mid 2015, are likely to hit coal-fired power plants hardest. If they are imposed, the effect may be to force power plants with marginal economics to close or convert to other fuels such as natural gas.  Some fear the impact of new EPA regulations on the cost of electricity, while some proponents of climate action support efforts to price the cost of carbon emissions into electricity produced from coal to encourage a switch to natural gas and other lower-carbon fuels.  Indeed, the plan calls for promoting natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to help domestic and international markets move away from coal and oil, calling for the U.S. to "promote fuel-switching from coal to gas for electricity production and encourage the development of a global market for gas."

Notably, some elements that observers had speculated might be included in the plan were omitted.  For example, the plan does not call for taxing carbon emissions or imposing a federal cap-and-trade regime for carbon.  Likewise, the plan outline does not conclusively address current issues such as whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline or coal export terminals will be approved.  Rather, the outline is relatively bullish about the opportunities to help foreign nations develop projects featuring natural gas, nuclear power, clean coal, and energy efficiency without mentioning the U.S.'s role as importer or exporter.  That said, in his oral remarks, President Obama said that Keystone XL can only be approved if it is found to be in the national interest, including whether or not it exacerbates climate change-related problems.

All eyes are watching whether President Obama is able to implement his plan effectively.  In the coming months, we can expect the federal administration to roll out significant new policies outlined in the plan.  Whether the policies can be put into action, their impacts, and whether they are able to achieve his goals, remains to be seen.

Long Island utility exec resigns, hurricane response blamed

The Long Island Power Authority announced this week that its Chief Operating Officer, Mike Hervey, has resigned from LIPA effective at the end of 2012.

LIPA is a political subdivision of the State of New York.  LIPA was formed in 1985 as a non-profit municipal electric utility to take over the assets of former investor-owned utility Long Island Lighting Company.  Today, LIPA owns the electric grid in most of Long Island.  LIPA does not own electric generation assets on the island but serves 1.1 million customers with electricity generated off-island.  Its electric distribution network was hard hit by Hurricane Sandy, with over 1.1 million customers losing power.  As of earlier this week, 10,000 customers just east of New York City were still without power, while 35,000 more farther onto Long Island suffered significant flood damage and will need repairs before electric service can be restored.  County executives and other leaders are calling for federal involvement, and have criticized LIPA for its management of the restoration process.

In a statement released November 13, LIPA Chairman Howard E. Steinberg stated that he had accepted Hervey's resignation, with regret, on behalf of the Board of Trustees.  The announcement noted that Hervey had worked for LIPA for 12 years, including serving as CEP for two years.

Also on Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo formed a commission to investigate utility companies' storm preparedness and management.  Governor Cuomo used his powers under the Moreland Act to form the commission, whose mandate also includes an examination of the regulatory and legal structures for oversight of utility operations.  Citing storms including Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and Hurricane Sandy in the past two years, Governor Cuomo also addressed the adaptation process of adjusting "to the reality of more frequent major weather incidents".

One utility executive has already resigned, and the commission's investigation will soon be under way.  What other changes lie ahead for utility companies in New York and elsewhere as a result of utility responses to hostile weather?

Hurricane Sandy's effects on energy

Hurricane Sandy is expected to make landfall near the southern coast of New Jersey this evening.  The storm has already dealt damage to Cuba, Jamaica, and Haiti, and is expected to carry significant storm energy northward into the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States.  Power outages are already being reported, but many more are expected: according to a Johns Hopkins engineering model, up to 10 million people may lose electricity in the mid-Atlantic over the next week.  Utilities are already staffing up and hiring external contractors to assist in the storm recovery efforts.  State governors are declaring a state of emergency to waive limits on how many hours utility workers can drive and work, to allow workers from other states and Canadian provinces to assist.

Hurricane Sandy's effects on energy are not limited to electric infrastructure.  Petroleum refineries - and by extension oil and gas markets - will also be impacted by the storm. According to a situation report released this morning by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, at least one petroleum refinery has already shut down.  Phillips 66's Linden, NJ refinery has shut down its production; the Linden refinery is capable of producing 238,000 barrels per day.

The report also cites trade press reports indicating reduced production at two other mid-Atlantic oil refineries, Philadelphia Energy Solutions’ Philadelphia, PA refinery (335,000 b/d capacity) and PBF Energy’s Delaware City refinery (182,200 b/d capacity).  Hurricane Sandy's impacts to refineries are not limited to those processing crude oil; the report also cites reduced production rates at Hess Corporation’s Port Reading, NJ facility (70,000 b/d capacity), which processes gas oils to produce petroleum products.

Collectively, these refineries do not account for a significant portion of the nation's refining capacity.  However, the impacted facilities' concentration in the mid-Atlantic may temporarily raise gasoline prices in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S.  A key factor affecting the extent of this price bump will be how quickly the refineries can return to full production.

When tomorrow morning comes, the storm's direct impacts will be well underway, as will restoration efforts.  Last year's October storm, Hurricane Irene, left many electric utility customers without power for over a week.  How will Sandy compare to Irene?

Susquehanna River flooding threatens dam, communities

Close on Hurricane Irene’s heels, the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee are dropping up to 10 inches of rain across the northeastern United States.  As we saw when Irene hit Vermont, storms like this can cause not only widespread flooding as streams rise above their banks, but even risk dam failure and more catastrophic flooding.

Now, the rains caused by Tropical Storm Lee have led authorities from Maryland to New York to order the evacuation of nearly 100,000 people.

Flooding along the Susquehanna River is responsible for a large portion of this risk.  Arising out of branches in upstate New York and western Pennsylvania, the 464-mile long Susquehanna is the longest river on the east coast to drain into the Atlantic Ocean.  The river overtopped retaining walls in Binghamton, NY earlier today, leading to road closures that effectively isolate the city.  Downstream, deepening floods have caused the evacuation of the entire city of Wilkes-Barre, PA.

The Susquehanna flooding has also impacted the Conowingo hydroelectric dam about 10 miles above the river’s mouth in Maryland.  With 11 turbines providing a nameplate capacity of 572 megawatts, the Conowingo dam is one of the nation's largest non-federal hydroelectric facilities.  Now operated by Exelon subsidiary Susquehanna Electric Company, the Conowingo Dam is threatened by the Susquehanna floodwaters.  As a result, 50 of the dam’s 53 flood control gates have been opened, causing authorities to evacuate people from the downstream communities of Havre de Grace and Port Deposit.  Area residents remember 1972's Hurricane Agnes, whose rains and flooding caused all 53 flood gates to be opened and the dam operator to prepare for a controlled breach of part of the dam.

As Lee’s rains move out of the area, water levels in the Susquehanna River will peak and then recede.  Time will tell how damaging the flood waters will be.         

April 28, 2011 - storms knock TVA nuclear plant offline

The rash of tornadoes and powerful storms across the American midwest and south have knocked three nuclear reactors in Alabama offline.

This small dam maintains water levels in Haley Pond in the village of Rangeley, Maine.

I've previously noted the Tennessee Valley Authority's nuclear power program, and how stormy weather can impact generation and the electric grid.  Yesterday, a series of severe storms and tornadoes damaged eleven major transmission lines in the Southeast, cutting the power supply to TVA's Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama.  Browns Ferry is home to three reactors with a combined capacity of 3,274 megawatts.


The TVA is a congressionally-chartered federal corporation operating a variety of generation resources.  Most famous among these may be the TVA's 29 hydroelectric dams, although TVA also operates three nuclear power plants (totaling six reactors), as well as coal plants, natural gas combined-cycle plants, and some non-hydro renewable power.




The storms may have some electric upside: TVA is running 8 of its 9 dams on the Tennessee River at full production -- primarily to control flooding, but producing hydroelectricity at the same time.

June 21, 2010 - adventure and news

From the energy/adventure department: yesterday I went kayaking on Center Pond in Phippsburg, Maine. (Thanks to the Phippsburg Land Trust for helping conserve the lands and access!) Center Pond, like Winnegance, was originally a tidal salt marsh. It was dammed in 1883 to make an ice pond. Ice was big business along the lower Kennebec, as it was the principal source of refrigeration for the world, and the combination of clean fresh water and proximity to shipping made the Kennebec a busy place for shipping ice.

I had a great paddle, although I did get chased off by a powerful lightning storm that ended up knocking out power for a few hours.

From Energy Policy Update

Quick energy policy news: an editorial in today's Morning Sentinel about biomass energy. This article comes in the wake of recent studies suggesting that despite other analyses, biomass combustion does have carbon and climate impacts. Indeed, several recent studies have suggested that not only does biomass combustion emit long-term atmospheric carbon, but that increased harvesting will exacerbate the carbon imbalance. The editorial notes that in Maine, biomass for combustion has typically come from wood waste and thinnings, not wood suitable for use for pulp, fiber or lumber, and suggests a compromise that may include restrictions that require the use of wood waste and thinning, not higher value material.

This is consistent with a conversation I had this morning with a client. We were discussing biomass markets and the federal BCAP program. He told me that BCAP was responsible for a number of processors setting up chippers in the woods in order to participate in the incentive program, and that some of this BCAP-induced activity involved chipping wood that could have been used for fiber or lumber. I've heard similar accounts several times in the months since BCAP went live.