Paul Fenn co-authored the nation’s original municipal aggregation law in Massachusetts 30 years ago. He wrote the nation’s first Community Choice Aggregation law for California in 1999 and the world’s first Green Bond in the US for San Francisco in 2001, using these to develop a new model for aggregation in California that has resulted in $35B of new renewables in the state in the past decade, including $15B of Green Bonds, the largest issuers in the US in 2024, larger than the nations of China and Canada. California CCA 2.0 programs secured 9 of the nation’s 10 top spots for voluntary renewable customers in 2024, with ten times the number of customers served by the next ten on the list . For the past decade Paul has developed CCA 3.0, which his company, Local Power LLC, is now implementing in New York as a CCA Administrator. This kind of CCA encompasses all addressable carbon sources in a community and engages customers in community wide decarbonization as owners of hyperlocal, interoperable Distributed Energy Resource projects.

Paul’s slides are available here.

A recording of the talk is available for personal use on request from kentwitt@gmail.com or rspector@polsci.umass.edu.

The post Technical Committee Talk on 6/13 appeared first on Fix the Grid.

Tyson Slocum highlighted the January 20 energy emergency declaration, which targets renewables and could hinder state policies promoting clean energy. Russ Aney noted the uncertainty and potential cuts to tax credits, particularly the 30% investment tax credit for solar, which could stall projects. Joe LaRusso mentioned the impact on offshore wind projects, with 2.5 GW already permitted and 6 GW unlikely to proceed. The tariffs on steel and aluminum could increase energy costs, hindering the transition to clean energy. Discussion followed.

An edited transcript of this meeting is available here.

Subsequent to the meeting, Tyson Slocum published a hard-hitting response to Trump’s emergency energy resolution that is available on the Public Citizen website here.

The post Whither the NE Clean Energy Transition in the Aftermath of the Administration’s Assault appeared first on Fix the Grid.

Abstract: A decentralized clean energy future is both necessary and inevitable. The centralized bulk power system, while still needed, is not capable by itself to meet today’s goals for decarbonization, resilience and energy justice. These goals all have local dimensions that require local solutions. Meanwhile DER technologies are rapidly improving in performance and cost just in time to enable cost-effective local energy solutions to be deployed for almost any type and scale of end-use need. This presentation will describe key elements of a decentralized, democratized future electricity system and offer practical strategies for building that future from the bottom up.

Speaker bio: Lorenzo Kristov is an independent consultant working on electric power system reform to integrate high levels of renewable generation and distributed energy resources (DER). With 18 years of experience as a Principal in market design and infrastructure policy at the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), Lorenzo’s areas of expertise include wholesale power market design, DER participation in wholesale markets, coordination of transmission and distribution operations, markets and planning, distribution system operator (DSO) models, distribution-level markets, local energy resilience and microgrids, and whole-system grid architecture.

Resources

1. Speaker slides available here.
2. Rough audio transcript available here.
3. Video recording available on request to kentwitt@gmail.com.
4. Announcement by Maine of availability of DSO study draft, webinar, and opportunities for comment.

Background

1. Envisioning a More Democratic, Bottom-Up Energy System, VOLTS podcast, May 15, 2024.
2. Testimony to Minnesota PUC re Xcel Minnesota rate case in 2022, provided by speaker.

The post Talk by Lorenzo Kristov appeared first on Fix the Grid.

Instead, Enbridge, the infamous pipeline company responsible for Line 3, Line 5, and the Weymouth Compressor, is proceeding with a 23% capacity expansion of the Algonquin pipeline. This pipeline runs from New Jersey through New York and into Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, bringing fracked gas from as far away as Texas.  The gas is then distributed to customers via distribution systems throughout New England. Enbridge claims more gas is needed for electricity generation and heating at the exact time we are seeking to reduce gas for these purposes.

Enbridge first announced this capacity expansion in late 2023, seeking customers willing to sign contracts. Since then the company has been proceeding with a series of supposedly independent “improvements and maintenance” on the pipeline, all consistent with their objective of increasing its capacity. Here is what we know so far.

• Enbridge is proceeding with a replacement pipeline with 4X the capacity of the existing pipeline in Rhode Island under the Sakonnet River, part of Narragansett Bay. Despite best efforts of the opposition, the Rhode Island authorities and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the project at the end of June.
• At the same time, FERC also authorized the construction of a new metering and regulator facility in Coventry, CT, denying protests filed by the opposition.
• On state-designated Priority Habitat of Rare Species in Lincoln, MA, Enbridge is planning to remove 40 or more mature trees in order to gain access to replace the metering and regulator facility there. The site is on land owned by the City of Cambridge that was purchased to provide a natural buffer for the city’s water supply. Cambridge opposed the project, but Enbridge sued, claiming eminent domain. A settlement was reached on June 14.  Opposition is forming, including a tree sit-in. It appears that Enbridge is short-cutting the approval process that should have included at least the state environmental authorities.

What can you do?

1. Educate yourself and others about this problem.  See http://stopprojectmaple.org for more background and upcoming actions. Join activists in the Stop Project Maple coalition by contacting Martha Klein (puckyshouse@gmail.com).
2. Write Letters to the Editor of your local papers expressing your opposition.
3. Contact your local officials in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut to sign an opposition letter for your state. See https://stopprojectmaple.org/take-action/ for instructions.

The post Stand Against Fossil Gas Expansion in our Back Yards appeared first on Fix the Grid.

The comments to FERC were based on the letter sent to state representatives prior to the Portland Forum in June. The main points concerned the need to take account of demand-side solutions and energy storage in planning for reliability and also to incorporate environmental justice issues, public health, and environmental impacts in all planning. A central demand was to convene a public forum with these issues in mind.  The high-level recommendations were as follows:

1. Put environmental justice and low-income communities front and center.
2. Ensure that energy efficiency and other demand-side solutions are on an equal footing with supply-side options to ensure resource adequacy.
3. Appropriately value clean energy storage and renewables for operations, market, environmental, and reliability studies and assessments.
4. Modernize the grid with improvements to transmission planning and interconnection.

Aside from submitting the comments to FERC, the Technical Committee also referenced the document in comments to ISO New England regarding the EPRI weather impact study, which was a central part of the forum. It was noted that the EPRI weather reliability analyses have provided no evidence to favor keeping the Everett Liquified Natural Gas Marine Terminal open.  In separate comments, Roy Harvey requested a scenario with large amounts of renewables and storage for the next phase of modeling reliability in the ISO-NE network. ISO-NE accepted his suggestion for analysis within the limitations of their modeling tool. You can read the full text of the Fix the Grid comments submitted to FERC here. Roy’s suggested scenario, one of the stakeholder-informed sensitivity analyses to be performed, is described on page 22 of this report from the NEPOOL Reliability Committee.

The post Comments from Fix the Grid on Reliability appeared first on Fix the Grid.

For more industry news summaries from the Technical Committee, see Bob Person’s Resource Digest. The latest entries also include news of a solar PV concern challenging the special treatment given to MA wind and hydro projects, an analysis of reliability factors for various generation sources, the cancellation of Avangrid’s contract for offshore wind, and more data on the unreliability of natural gas.

The post New FERC Rules for Speeding up Grid Connections appeared first on Fix the Grid.

by Roy Harvey and Kent Wittenburg on behalf of the FTG Technical Committee

The Future Grid Reliability Study was undertaken by ISO-NE to plan for a transformed grid in which the generation mix changes radically from a large dependence on fossil fuels to one that meets the goals of decarbonization of the NE states and is supplied in large part by renewables. The Future Grid Reliability Study Phase 1 (FGRS Phase 1) seeks to identify operational and reliability challenges and was released in stages starting in July 2022. Phase 2, expected in 2023, will be an economic study to determine whether the existing market structures will be sufficient to provide the resources needed to meet the challenges identified in Phase 1. Both are part of the  ISO-NE Future Grid Initiative, and materials are available on the ISO-NE website. 

Groups such as Fix the Grid that are advocating for a rapid and complete transition of the grid away from fossil fuels need to look closely at studies like these since the need for reliability, a fundamental mission of any grid authority such as ISO-NE, could be used to slow walk the green transition. It is much easier to manage reliability in a grid composed of dispatchable fossil fuel generation than in one that is made up of distributed, variable generation like wind and solar until long-term storage technologies mature. And yet we must acknowledge that the challenges of providing reliability with a decarbonized grid are real.

Study Summary

The scenario of primary interest (Scenario 3–”deep decarbonization”) analyzed in the study consisted of modeling a 2040 NE grid that meets the goal for the New England states to reach an emissions reduction of 80% from 1990 levels as well as meeting the requirements of a doubling of electricity demand by that date. Electricity demand is projected to double because of the transition to electric heat and electric transportation. The complexities of such a grid include meeting demand with variable and distributed generation (wind and solar) and managing battery storage. The most important question posed by this study is whether a deep carbonization scenario could meet reliability criteria and, if so, how. The requirements for reliability, which come from federal and regional regulatory bodies, include that outages (aside from weather-related) caused by deficient resources shall happen on average for no more than 2.4 hours per year. Resource adequacy tools were used in the study to model the NE grid system on a minute-by-minute basis under variable weather conditions to determine if generation could meet demand at all times.

Here were the most significant results:

• The base case models of Scenario 3 satisfied emissions reduction and increasing electricity demand expectations without considering variability due to weather.
  
  Scenario 3 in this study modeled a generation mix that met the emission reduction goals while satisfying a doubling of demand through “nameplate” capacity. (“Nameplate” is an indication of ideal generation capacity, but renewables are affected by weather conditions.) The scenario included all planned generator retirements and also the retirement of all remaining coal, oil, and refuse-burning plants. Natural gas generation continued but amounted to roughly half of the average 2005-2019 generation. The amount of renewables grew significantly to a total of 45.6 GW and included 17 GWs of offshore wind, 28 GW of solar, and .6 GW of battery storage–the amount was 2.5X the amount of renewables assumed in the base scenario 0, which was a continuation of current growth trends and conservative demand increase forecasts. It included two-way flows through interconnections outside NE to “bank” energy. Aside from the pending 1200-MW Hydro Quebec tie-line, the model included an additional tie-in from NY and Quebec.
  
• Alternatives were then explored to meet reliability requirements in the face of expected weather extremes and time-of-day limitations (on solar, in particular).
  
  The study’s authors explored alternatives to try and satisfy the reliability requirements while at the same time minimizing cost and curtailment conditions, in which renewables are generating more energy than can be consumed or stored for future use. Most significantly:
  
  • Scenario 3_P7 explored scaling renewables sufficient to meet reliability goals. It required doubling the amount of wind and solar over the base Scenario 3 case to 90 GW. There was also a relatively small amount of battery storage added. Analysis suggested that a large amount of generation curtailment would be expected at times when the renewables’ energy was not needed and storage was at capacity. Also, such a large increase in renewables would put an undue strain on the transmission system and require huge areas for wind and solar farms. 
  • The authors then examined the possibility of replacing part of this projected need for an increase of renewables with dispatchable (on-demand) power.  They came to the conclusion that reliability could be satisfied in a scenario where 19% of the otherwise required renewables were replaced by the equivalent of 3% of dispatchable resources. Today’s dispatchable resources are almost all fossil-fuel based, but possible future alternatives include green hydrogen, small modular nuclear units, and co-located storage and renewables. This conclusion was considered to be one of the most significant findings of the study. However, note that the role of storage was largely ignored.
    
• The study’s authors acknowledged that the current set of modeling tools is inadequate to evaluate options for a grid of the future.
  
  In the authors’ own words: “The FGRS Phase 1 is a turning point study for our region. Many existing long-term assumptions were called into question as part of this analysis, and results show that the methods by which the ISO and region at large evaluate future grids require an overhaul. The hypothetical future resources and demand mixes assumed by the FGRS are very different from today’s system and cannot be fully evaluated with our current tools or assumptions. The FGRS identifies and quantifies many reliability and operation challenges, transmission problems, and ancillary services gaps. Additionally, this analysis identifies areas where gaps of a future grid cannot as of yet be identified or quantified in sufficient detail to suggest a potential path forward.”

Observations from the Fix-the-Grid-Technical Group

The FTG-Technical group believes that studies such as this are important. However, they are only as good as the tools with which they are modeled and the validity of the assumptions that they make.  

• A grid of the future will be heavily dependent on managing demand as well as large amounts of storage. 
  
  It is misleading at best and potentially harmful to come to conclusions about a pathway for a future grid largely composed of renewables if one cannot model demand response and large amounts of different types of storage. The FGRS authors acknowledge these limitations. We look forward to next-generation modeling tools for ISO-NE planners and caution that policy makers should not draw premature conclusions from this study.
  
•  Other studies have come to different conclusions about the ability of 100% renewable systems to be reliable.
  
  • A study from Stanford, which has been examined by the FTG-Technical group, has come to the conclusion that a reliable grid throughout the US is possible with 100% renewables.  One of the significant differences between the Stanford study and the FRGS study is the use of green hydrogen for long-term storage in the Stanford study.
    
  • A recent white paper from a California energy company showed through modeling that providing all-renewable energy 99 percent of the time could meet hourly demand in its region. It concluded that the cost of doing so added minimal to no cost compared to matching demand with renewable power supply on an annual basis. Although there are clear regional differences between NE and California, it is still puzzling that the FGRS study concluded that a doubling of renewable capacity over nameplate capacity was needed to meet reliability.
    
• We need to think outside the box and question the assumptions that large increases in electricity demand are inevitable and that current standards for reliability are appropriate for a future of weather extremes.
  
  The US has one of the largest amounts of energy use per capita in the world. The US uses five times the energy per capita as Uruguay, which has succeeded in building close to a 100% renewable grid (see NYT article). It is time that our politicians and regulating authorities talk about reducing overall demand as well as shifting demand away from peak times. The tendency so far is simply to plan for meeting increased demand with increased generation. As for reliability, does it make sense to emphasize the objective of building a grid to achieve less than 2.4 hours of anticipated downtime annually when a much bigger problem is extreme weather events that are happening at an ever-more rapid pace that bring parts of the grid down for extended periods?
  
• We are facing a full-blown climate emergency and our grid-planning authorities should act accordingly.
  
  The “deep decarbonization” scenario for 2040 that became the focus of this study still emits 13.2 million tons of CO2 in New England annually. Phase 2 of the study should address the latest state policies, and Massachusetts, for example, includes a 2050 limit for electricity generation that is a 93% emissions reduction rather than an 80% reduction from 1990 levels. We will continue to monitor these studies.

The post Takeaways from the ISO-NE Future Grid Reliability Study: Phase 1 appeared first on Fix the Grid.

[read the full letter]

The post Open Letter to NE Governors and NESCOE representatives regarding FERC Winter Reliability Forum appeared first on Fix the Grid.

The post FTG advocates loud and clear at ISO-NE Consumer Liaison Group Meeting in Peabody appeared first on Fix the Grid.

No ‘silver bullet’: Report lays out fixes for interconnection delays plaguing US renewables and storage 5/25/23 Utility Dive Brief by Stephen Singer. The non-profit Clean Energy Group sponsored a study by Applied Economics Clinic outlining the interconnection problem and concluding that: 

• “policymakers need to establish interconnection processes to ‘take a systemic view’ of applications rather than examine interconnection applications and grid upgrades” on a case-by-case basis.
• “utilities, state officials, grid operators and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should iterate interconnection processes to ‘build in regular improvements, examine effectiveness, and coordinate stakeholders to tackle ad hoc coordination problems.’”
• “end the model of cost allocation for grid upgrades known as cost causation by spreading distribution system upgrade costs over a broader set of stakeholders than the projects applying for interconnection”
• “study proposed storage resources in a way that reflects how the resources would reasonably be expected to operate once interconnected.”

The generators who cry ‘wolf’: How competitive wholesale markets handle generator bankruptcy 5/24/23 Utility Dive Opinion by Mike Hogan. “During the recent Winter Storm Elliott, a shockingly large amount of generation receiving capacity payments from PJM and ISO New England failed to perform when called upon. Nearly all of it was fossil-fueled, most of it fueled with natural gas. Under the pay-for-performance arrangements established years ago following a similarly dismal performance during 2014’s ‘Polar Vortex,’ under which these generators have collected hundreds of millions of dollars a year to be reliable capacity, they face steep financial penalties for their failure to perform. Now some are seeking to evade those penalties, offering a flurry of excuses… Regardless of the validity of any of the excuses offered (or lack thereof), these generators are also attempting to fall back on the stratagem behind which the fossil industry customarily retreats when caught with their pants down — claiming a threat to reliability, in this case from the possibility that the penalties might drive some generators into bankruptcy… Recent history demonstrates this tired grandstanding about reliability should receive no weight in considering their appeals (or in considering changes to the market rules). Why? Bankruptcy rarely leads to a loss of the associated capacity, in fact, quite the opposite…”

Mass. agency dismisses 2 battery storage projects, citing lack of legal clarity over ‘generating facility’ 5/23/23 Utility Dive Brief by Stephen Singer. MA DPU will review proposals for two battery energy storage systems after – with prodding by local interest groups – MA’s Energy Facilities Siting Board couldn’t determine whether it had the jurisdiction to do so. 

Federal judge dismisses whale case, upholds permits for offshore Vineyard Wind project 5/23/23 Utility Dive piece by Diana DiGangi. “Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts ruled Wednesday that the advocacy group Nantucket Residents Against Turbines failed to demonstrate that the wellbeing of the endangered species wasn’t sufficiently taken into account by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National Marine Fisheries Service when permitting the project… The project currently faces three other lawsuits, with two of them representing the interests of the fishing industry.”

The post No silver bullet for interconnection woes, generators play the bankruptcy card, and more appeared first on Fix the Grid.