This article originally appeared on RTO Insider on February 12, 2017.
By Wayne Barber
WASHINGTON — Modest optimism about the Trump administration’s infrastructure plans was tempered with questions about leadership at FERC and other federal agencies at a gathering of transmission developers, RTO officials and environmentalists last week.
The first National Electric Transmission Infrastructure Summit, held Feb. 9-10 by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, also heard concerns over how to pay for grid modernization in a time of anemic load growth. The organization, an initiative of the Energy Future Coalition, has held regional transmission conferences, but this was its first national event.
The coalition was formed in 2002 by former Sen. Tim Wirth, a Colorado Democrat; Republican C. Boyden Gray, who served as White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush; and Democrat John Podesta, a former aide to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
“I’d love to have more load growth. It ain’t going to happen,” Craig Glazer, PJM’s vice president for federal government policy, told the gathering.
Weak load growth will make it more complicated to finance upgrades for aging transmission, and the lack of a federal carbon tax or renewable mandate is making it difficult to integrate renewable generation, Glazer said.
Much of the current grid was built during the 1950s, 60s and 70s, with the deployment of coal and nuclear power plants, said ITC Holdings Executive Vice President and COO Jon Jipping. Now that many of those big baseload stations are being retired, much of the new generation — mostly natural gas or renewable energy — is in different locations that require new transmission, Jipping noted.
From the podium and on the sidelines, speakers said that while they like the Trump administration’s pro-growth rhetoric, they are also anxious to see FERC restored to full strength and who will be the key lieutenants to energy secretary nominee Rick Perry.
Speakers also cited concerns over cost allocation, regional planning and the shortcomings of FERC Order 1000.
Wade Smith, senior vice president of grid development for American Electric Power, said his company has made transmission a higher investment priority than generation in recent years as it focuses more on regulated utility operations.
Modernization is needed because much of the AEP grid is 70 years old, and yet it integrates 9,000 MW of wind, Smith said.
While much of the U.S. electric transmission system was built in the mid-20th century, the infrastructure components are inspected every year, said Rudy Wynter, National Grid’s president of FERC-regulated businesses. The grid was built in big chunks and it will largely be rebuilt in large chunks, Wynter said. This includes not only renewable integration but also preparing for more electric vehicles and offshore wind power, he added.
During one session, SPP CEO Nick Brown was interviewed by former FERC Chairman James Hoecker, now senior counsel for WIRES Group, which represents transmission developers and utilities. Hoecker stressed the importance of adding three commissioners to get FERC back to full strength. With only two commissioners since the Feb. 3 resignation of former Chairman Norman Bay, FERC lacks a quorum. (See FERC OKs Pipelines, Delegation Order Before Losing Quorum.)
Hoecker and Brown discussed FERC’s inability to gain “backstop” siting authority, saying it’s still very difficult to prevent individual states from blocking a project. The Energy Policy Act of 2015 amended the Federal Power Act to give FERC the authority to site electric transmission lines blocked by states, but court rulings have blocked the commission’s attempts to use it, prompting some in Congress to propose additional legislation strengthening FERC’s authority.
Brown said that Order 1000 hasn’t really helped SPP much with large regional projects.
“We need to decide what we want this grid of the future to look like,” Glazer said. For example, should it be a “localized grid” that can harness distributed generation? he asked. “There’s an added complication; it’s not even clear who is in charge,” Glazer said. FERC, state utility commissions and governors all have a say in siting decisions, he said.
If each governor is asked what infrastructure projects they want, the country will end up with a lot of state-based projects, not interstate ones, Clean Line Energy Partners President Mike Skelly said.
Perhaps the new mantra is “we’re going to make transmission great again,” Skelly said. The power to select infrastructure projects should not be taken away from transmission planners and placed in the hands of Congress, he said.
Skelly and others cautioned the Trump administration not to skimp on project reviews or stakeholder input. The key is that all projects must have “timelines” for regulatory approvals to avoid infinite delays, he said.
The executive director of the AFL-CIO’s Industrial Union Council, Brad Markell, said the labor movement agrees with the need for “hard timelines” to shorten the permit process.
Markell said that labor unions have been in contact with the Trump administration on potential infrastructure efforts.
“From our point of view, more power for the federal government and less power for the states [on electric infrastructure] would be a good thing,” he said.
Others deemed that unlikely. “I think we’re stuck with the system we have,” Glazer said.
Environmentalists Weigh In
Liese Dart, senior energy advisor for The Wilderness Society, said her organization favors prescreening certain public lands for development suitability.
Mary Anne Hitt, executive director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, said that — contrary to what conference participants may have heard — her organization doesn’t oppose all power lines, only those that appear aimed to “prop up fossil fuels.”
The environmental group opposed the abandoned “coal by wire” Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project in PJM. On the other hand, it has backed the Plains and Eastern Clean Line Project, designed to move renewable energy from Oklahoma to Tennessee.
Hitt said she was concerned that President Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, opposed Clean Line in 2015 as Oklahoma attorney general.
Hitt also said the Sierra Club has concerns about the Gateway West project, a proposal by PacifiCorp and Idaho Power to build about 1,000 miles of high-voltage transmission through Wyoming and Idaho. She said PacifiCorp has been slower than some Western utilities in reducing its coal use and slower than the Sierra Club would like in expanding its renewable resources.
When it comes to protecting the grid, Brown said much of the discussion seems to be centered on preventing cyber intrusions. Perhaps the discussion should be less about how to keep cyber intruders out than to minimize the damage and restore order once they disrupt the system, the SPP official said, likening the approach to “insurance.”
But he said winning regulatory approval for equipment such as spare transformers may be difficult.
“I believe we are going to have to spend much more money on spare equipment, and that’s going to be tough to sell,” Brown said. “We are unwilling to spend that kind of money for spare equipment because it is not ‘used and useful.’”
SPP Chief Reticent on Mountain West
Brown declined to reveal much about the status of the Mountain West Transmission Group’s discussions about joining SPP.
Mountain West, a partnership of seven transmission-owning entities within the Western Interconnection, revealed the discussions in January. It said if the talks with SPP are not successful, it would likely explore joining another RTO. (See Mountain West to Explore Joining SPP.)
In response to a question about whether Mountain West was attracted by SPP’s cost-allocation system, Brown replied, “You’d have to ask them.”
“We’re excited about it,” Brown said of the talks, before cautioning, “Nothing is signed.”
A new assessment of the Eastern U.S. grid shows it will theoretically be able to handle 30% renewables within ten years, but only with serious upgrades to the bulk power system.
The Eastern Interconnection (EI), the world’s biggest power system, delivers electricity to 270 million customers. By 2026, system operators will be able to maintain power reliability with more than ten times the current amount of wind and solar on the system today, according to the recently-released Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study (ERGIS).
That forecast takes into account only existing technologies, but that doesn’t mean the capability will be automatic. Increasing on today’s 40 GW of wind and solar in the EI region will only make sense if there’s adequate transmission to deliver the electricity to offtakers, the study found.
But developing that dramatic increase of today’s estimated 35 GW to 40 GW of wind and solar resources will only make sense if there is adequate transmission to deliver the output to EI region off-takers.
Whether that will happen remains up in the air, experts told Utility Dive.
“The resource is not the issue. It is the delivery system that is the issue,” said Wind on the Wires (WOW) Executive Director Beth Soholt, who has spent over 15 years working for new transmission throughout the Midwest.
Veteran transmission authority Roger Rosenqvist, now a vice president at ABB, agrees the lack of new wires is a real barrier.
“With the necessary renewables so remote from load centers, I doubt there is any way to integrate 30% renewables into the Eastern Interconnection without some expansion of existing transmission,” he said. “The problem is how to pay for it.”
The Eastern Interconnect at 30% renewables
The EI is a 50,000 line, alternating current (AC) system served by over 5,600 generators. Its footprint spans the U.S. and Canada, from Nova Scotia to Florida and from the Atlantic coast to the foot of the Rocky Mountains.
The study’s “one big insight” is that 30% renewables can reliably integrated into the EI in either of two scenarios, study author Aaron Bloom said.
“It can be done with an intra-regional transmission expansion and 20% wind and 10% photovoltaic solar,” he said. “Or it can be done with an inter-regional transmission expansion and 20% onshore wind, 5% offshore wind, and 5% PV solar.”
In either scenario, 60% of the solar PV capacity was utility-scale solar and 40% was distributed solar, he added.
This is the first time simulations this sophisticated have shown this level of renewables could be managed on the EI in the five minute intervals energy markets currently use, Bloom said. That is key, because reliable dispatch at that pace alleviates system operators’ concerns about wind and solar variability.
Five minute dispatch allows “instantaneous wind-solar penetrations of 50% or more,” Bloom said. “We are pretty confident most of the country can get to 30% annual penetration levels and intervals with renewables at 55% or 60% would not be show stoppers.”
As wind and solar penetrations rise, a number of changes would likely happen, the study reports.
Existing fossil and hydro generation would have to ramp up and down more rapidly and frequently to balance variability. Under study parameters, coal plants would be used about 20% more often and natural gas plants would be used over 40% more often.
Fossil plants would also run for shorter periods, which could compensate for increased operational wear and tear. Overall fossil generation would drop 30% and CO2 emissions would drop 33% in the highest renewables scenarios studied.
Power flow across the EI would be faster and more frequent, allowing system operators to take advantage of peaking wind or solar generation. Regional power trading would follow wind and solar load patterns.
Wind peaks at night and is growing in the western portion of the EI, and afternoon-peaking solar solar is expanding in the EI southeast, Bloom said. “The increased power flow would come from those regional and time zone peaking differences.”
A 60% renewables penetration was the highest for any five minute period in any modeled year. The highest annual average curtailment of wind and solar was 6.2%.
The needed flexibility that new renewables and new transmission would deliver will only come through regulatory changes and new market designs that are “outside the scope of the ERGIS study,” Bloom said.
ERGIS did not identify specific transmission projects, but described an optimal build-out of both inter-regional high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, likely built on a merchant basis, and new intra-regional AC line additions to existing systems built by their operators, said American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Research Director Michael Goggin, who was part of the EIPC process.
The modeled high renewables penetrations would be more easily achieved with new transmission for at least three basic reasons, according to the Eastern Interconnect study.
Integration and balancing of “hundreds of GW of wind and PV generation depends on generator and transmission operators offering their capabilities to the system operator;”
Market participants will require “significant, additional coordination across multiple areas in order to act on resource availability that is multiple regions away,” and;
Increased balancing with fossil generation “assumed a common thermal generating fleet across scenarios, regardless of renewable penetration,” the study reports.
Current transmission expansion
Siting transmission is a notoriously lengthy and contentious process, but Bloom said another problem the fact that “there’s plenty of generation, and that lowers the drive to build new lines,”
“The study does not say new transmission will absolutely be necessary for the 30% scenario,” he said, “but it will probably be necessary for the 50% and 70% and 90% scenarios needed to deal with climate change.”
Two pieces of big news have come recently from independent, or merchant, transmission developers now working on new HVDC lines to market to power producers and load serving entities (LSEs).
First, Pattern Development has decided to bring its 2,000 MW, 500 kV, HVDC Southern Cross project into the market.
“We have always wanted to move the project, but there was no need to stir up regulators until we were ready to file at their commissions and to stir up landowners until we were ready to start talking to them about rights of way,” said Business Development Manager James Dermody.
Southern Cross was first conceived in 2009, when the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) lines in Texas were being developed, Dermody said. “It is basically an eastward continuation of the CREZ lines to move Texas wind to off-takers in the Southeast that don’t have commercial quality winds.”
The line will run from East Texas, across Louisiana to the Mississippi-Alabama border. Pattern estimates it will provide total economic benefits of over $600 million as well as local annual tax benefits.
Pattern’s development arm is now actively identifying a route corridor and will, in the next 30 days to 60 days, file for permits with Louisiana and Mississippi regulators.
“We came out of the foxhole in the spring of this year because work on our routing is gaining momentum and we want local leaders and landowners to participate with us in that process,” Dermody said.
Next steps include permitting, land acquisition, and completing the interconnection. Construction is scheduled for the first part of 2018, with an online target of spring 2021. Given the challenges of federal environmental and other permitting still ahead, it is an ambitious schedule, he acknowledged.
The permitting processes are not expected to be complicated because the project was designed in coordination with state agencies to avoid known environmental constraints, Dermody said. “Everything right now is pointing to meeting our very aggressive timeline.”
The other big news is that the Plains & Eastern (P&E) Clean Line, a $2 billion, 705-mile, 4,000 MW HVDC transmission system being developed by Clean Line Energy Partners (CLEP), is moving toward construction. It aims to deliver Oklahoma wind to the Southeast U.S.
“We have been super active across Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee since the Department of Energy ruling,” said Spokesperson Sarah Bray. “We are planning to start building in late 2017 and we are in detailed discussions with generators and off-takers, including utilities and LSEs in all three states and farther east.”
CLEP only recently overcame jurisdictional complications that prevented Arkansas regulators from permitting the P&E line. Development was stopped until the DOE granted federal eminent domain authority under its Energy Policy Act of 2005 power, allowing CLEP to move ahead with obtaining ROWs.
Though Pattern hopes to avoid regulatory barriers with Southern Cross, CLEP still faces them with its P&E line, as well as the Grain Belt Express Clean Line and Rock Island Clean Line projects.
CLEP is negotiating rights of way (ROWs) with landowners along the P&E route in return for “fair compensation,” Bray said.
Grain Belt has been permitted in Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana but CLEP must still overcome Missouri regulators’ objection to its 2014 filing. In response to the Missouri Public Service Commission assertion that Grain Belt does not deliver local benefit to the state, CLEP contracted with the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) and re-filed for approval.
The line is expected to save customers of the 35 MJMEUC municipal utilities $10 million annually, according to the public power agency’s analysis. A Missouri Department of Economic Development economic impact analysis showed Grain Belt will also support an estimated 1,500 Missouri jobs during each of its three construction years.
“We are hoping for a decision on the new filing in early-to-mid-2017 so construction can start in 2018 and the project can be online in 2021,” Bray said.
The Rock Island Clean Line, however, still faces regulatory complications preventing approval by the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) and recently suffered a setback when an appellate court reversed its unanimous 2014 approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC).
It is a $2 billion, 500 mile HVDC project that would deliver 3,500 MW of Iowa wind to the MISO and PJM Interconnection markets.
The appellate court ruled Rock Island does not serve the public use in Illinois. But the Illinois court’s decision ignores the fact that “100% of the project’s low-cost electricity would be delivered into a ComEd substation in Illinois, and would be available to serve Illinois customers, and would reduce energy prices in Illinois by $320 million in the first year of operation,” CLEP argues.
CLEP, ICC attorneys, and other Illinois groups have appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court and will also argue that if the decision stands it will create barriers to competition and lead to higher electricity prices, Bray said.
In Iowa, Rock Island needs authority to exercise eminent domain in obtaining ROWs. But Iowa law requires project developers to complete the potentially costly and time-consuming process of obtaining ROWs before applying for a permit granting that authority.
“The IUB has not denied the permit,” Bray said. “We have asked the IUB to permit Rock Island on the basis of the portion of ROWs we have already obtained or will obtain but we have been unable to get them to move.”
The federal authority CLEP was able to use in Arkansas does not apply in Iowa, she added.
CLEP began planning merchant transmission development in 2009 and knew from the start it would face obstacles “because there aren’t many people trying to do this,” Bray said. “It is hard, but big projects take a long time, and when you pass a milestone like the DOE granting use of its federal authority, it is exciting.”
“The country is moving toward a cleaner energy future regardless of where the politics are,” Bray said. “Polls show people want clean energy and it can now be delivered at a price that is competitive with any other resource. To make that happen we need to build this infrastructure.”
Overlays connect the dots
Beyond merchant transmission projects, another way to expand system flexibility is emerging.
The Clean Lines and Southern Cross are “pipelines to deliver renewables,” ABB’s Rosenqvist said. “Transmission overlays would add uncommitted transmission capacity to give grid operators the flexibility to shift the renewables-generated power those pipelines deliver.”
The merchant lines will deliver some of the EI’s renewables potential but “all the lines currently in planning do not even get close to the 30% target,” he added.
A transmission overlay would provide new capacity within the EI and new merchant lines would deliver renewables from outside the EI, Rosenqvist said. “It would be like the interstate highway system with multiple paths and excess capacity so generation across the U.S. could be re-dispatched to load centers without creating bottlenecks.”
The obstacle to building an overlay is finding a way to allocate the cost, Rosenqvist believes. Reliability areas allocate new project costs across their rate bases but an overlay connecting two systems would require a new rate structure allocating costs to both systems.
System operators have only recently begun to work out cost allocation for new transmission within their footprints and a push at FERC for inter-regional cost allocation “has not gotten very far,” he said.
FERC Order 1000 was a step forward in inter-regional transmission planning and cost allocation but it has fallen short, AWEA’s Goggin agreed. “There is no effective mechanism for paying for lines between systems yet there is a huge amount of congestion and savings for consumers are being lost because of insufficient transmission between regions that would pay for itself.”
Yet “the speed and scale of adequate resource deployment depends critically on the speed of transmission deployment – especially across regions,” AWEA argued in a recent FERC filing.
Wind on the Wire’s Soholt has been working with MISO on early stage overlay planning that would identify and combine “reliability needs and economic opportunities,” according to a recent presentation from the grid operator.
“The transition the generation fleet is going through is one of the big drivers because an overlay would allow MISO flexibility while keeping the grid reliable,” Soholt said.
Allocating costs for new transmission will be challenging, she agreed. “But if MISO can show value over the long term in lowering wholesale prices or meeting public policy needs or allowing the flexibility to bring new resources online, it could build consensus for moving forward.”
Historically, transmission to deliver new generation was built to meet load growth but load growth today is flat, Soholt said. Now transmission will be added to reliably serve load while taking advantage of renewables to meet public policy needs while keeping costs low.
“Wind in the Midwest and solar in the Southwest are cost-effective now but all regions should be looking at adding renewables because wind and solar are soon going to be cost-effective in one way or another everywhere,” she said.
Like AWEA, WOW has argued to FERC that Order 1000 efforts to drive inter-regional transmission growth need to improve, Soholt said.
“We hope SPP and MISO will be able to incorporate an overlay into the 2017 that could produce candidate lines,” she said.
California is trying to take a small step in that direction. In the process, it is revealing the kinds of political tensions that stand in the way of grid integration.
California needs somewhere to put all its solar energy
The story comes to us via an excellent report by Lauren Sommer at KQED Science. It’s about a problem that’s beginning to hit in California — and will hit in other places in years to come, as renewable energy spreads.
Every so often, solar panels in California produce more solar energy than the grid needs. When these oversupply events occur, grid operators manually “curtail” solar production, cutting some panels off from the grid, effectively letting clean, zero-carbon energy go to waste.
This doesn’t happen all that often yet — roughly 2.2 GWh of renewable energy were curtailed due to oversupply in 2014, relative to the 44,000 GWh of renewable energy the grid used — but the problem is expected to get worse as wind and solar expand in the state.
This illustrates the key challenge that wind and solar (together known as variable renewable energy, or VRE) pose to self-contained grids: their intermittency. A lot of solar comes flooding in at midday, and then it all goes away at night. Sometimes it can go away all at once and come back a few minutes later (a phenomenon known as “clouds”). Wind can come all at once and then die down all at once.
It’s a challenge for today’s grids to handle both the quantities involved at peak VRE production times and the steep “ramps” up or down in supply and demand that come with VRE.
There are many ways to tackle the challenges of integrating VRE. I’ve written about the big picture here and more fine-grained, near-term solutions here.
But perhaps the easiest way to solve the problem, or at least postpone it, is to make the grid bigger. The larger the geographical area the grid covers, the more variations in supply and demand can be smoothed out. When one area is at peak VRE production, it can ship power to other areas rather than curtail it.
That’s just what the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) wants to do: link up California’s grid with those around it. “You’re operating your little piece of the system,” CAISO VP Keith Casey told Sommer of KQED, “but if you can operate it as an integrated whole, you can just operate the system more efficiently.”
Conceptually, this makes all the sense in the world. When it comes to the details, though, the politics can get sticky.
California’s clean grid meets PacifiCorp’s dirty one
There are a number of grid “balancing authorities” (grids run by particular utilities) near California, to which it could theoretically connect:
(Follow the link to see what all those acronyms stand for.)
CAISO’s first partnership is with PacifiCorp, a utility that runs a grid in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Oregon.
There are already some (currently little-used) power lines strung between the two regions, which could be used for greater coordination between CAISO and PacifiCorp. So they are planning an integration of their operations, scheduled to be in effect by 2019:
A PacifiCorp-funded study found that the integration would benefit ratepayers across both regions. And it would certainly help CAISO find a way to export (rather than curtail) its excess solar energy.
But there’s a wrinkle.
If CAISO and PacifiCorp become one big grid, it opens up all sorts of regulatory and legal questions. Who manages an interstate grid? Who regulates it? Do California’s laws apply to it? Can they, legally speaking?
PacifiCorp is a big owner of coal plants — 60 percent of its energy comes from coal. All that coal will now effectively be on California’s grid. California has worked hard, economically and politically, to clean up its grid. What will happen to that progress?
These concerns led several state lawmakers to write the governor laying out a list of “significant unanswered questions” and requirements related to the integration.
They want to ensure that California’s pollution and greenhouse gases continue to be reduced, that California’s renewable energy mandates continue to be met, that California ratepayers benefit, and that investment not be shifted into PacifiCorp’s territory at California’s expense.
And because CAISO and its board were created by the legislature, presumably a new act of the legislature would be required to expand them, so these legislators will have to be heard and satisfied. (I asked a top staffer if their questions had been answered to their satisfaction; they have not.)
These parochial concerns make complete sense. These politicians are, after all, representing Californians.
But the bigger picture remains: Grid expansion has to happen eventually. The climate certainly doesn’t care about California’s emissions; it only cares about total emissions. If sharing VRE with PacifiCorp lowers overall emissions, it is to the good, even if Californians consume less VRE than they might otherwise have. Somehow, the economics and politics of grid expansion have to be worked out.
The perils of state-based climate and energy policy
California’s experience reveals some of the dysfunctions that come with the US lacking a coherent national climate policy. When each state with green ambitions has its own regulations, its own targets, its own mandates, even its own grid, it can feel protective of its own progress and loath to dilute it by hooking up with more laggardly states.
And California legislators are not crazy to feel that way. Wyoming and Utah are fighting tooth and nail against Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Wyoming is deeply invested in coal production. Oregon-based PacifiCorp is heavily invested in coal plants (though it ismoving away from them). Opening CAISO’s grid to possible federal oversight also opens it to various federal lawsuits, many launched by laggardly states, meant to stop clean energy regulations.
Then again, it’s the laggardly states that need the renewable energy, and the clean states that have got it — in California’s case, at least temporarily, too much of it.
Hooking up into larger and larger grids is part of the logic of transitioning to clean energy. It is necessary in order for California to hit its ambitious 50 percent renewables target. And it’s probably necessary in order for the US to hit the targets it promised in Paris.
On some time scale, a national grid is both necessary and inevitable.
Transmission is a one-time fix
Variable renewable energy poses what you might call “whole system” challenges to energy grids. Once VRE rises to a certain level of penetration, it begins to swing between producing more energy than the system needs to and producing, in periods of extended calm or clouds, almost none.
Unless you can do something about those huge peaks and valleys, you need almost 100 percent redundancy — enough backup power plants to supply 100 percent of demand in the event that VRE is providing none.
But big coal and nuclear plants can’t just turn off in the morning and turn on in the evening. Even where they are physically capable, it’s too expensive. So you end up needing lots and lots of natural gas plants. Not ideal.
The way states and countries have achieved high VRE penetration to date is by cheating these whole-system problems. They cheat it by making the system bigger, hooking up transmission to surrounding grids so that they can offload the their occasional VRE surplus and import power to back up their VRE.
That’s what Denmark did, linking its grid to Sweden, Norway, and Germany so that it can export wind power when it has more than it needs and import power when the wind is idle.
That’s what CAISO is trying to do, linking to surrounding Western states.
But note that this is a one-time-only way to postpone the problem. Eventually states or regions are going to reach a point where there are no more bigger grids to hook up. And then the whole-system problems return. At that point, the system can’t be made any bigger, so the problems have to be solved some other way.
We still have to sort out storage and shift demand
One way to tackle the problems is cheap and effective energy storage, to absorb the midday VRE surplus and return power at night or when it’s cloudy.
The other big one is figuring out ways to shift demand so that it coincides better with periods of peak VRE production. There are lots of ways to do that, from incentives that change human behavior to automated networks of electric vehicle batteries to … water heaters.
California is smart to set its sights on a bigger grid. It will ease the immediate problem. But the state should also be pushing as hard as possible toward better storage and better demand shifting (and all the other strategies I covered here), because sooner or later the whole-system problems have to be solved, and the sooner they are, the greater the long-term payoff.
If the United States is going to get serious about cutting carbon emissions from oil and gas, it will have to find ways to scale up its use of renewable energy. Converting wind and solar power into electricity is, in some ways, the easy part. The bigger challenge is developing the infrastructure to transmit that electricity across the country.
In the case of wind, most of that power is generated far from the urban centers that would use it. Transmission would require a new nationwide system of power lines reaching from the windiest parts of the country. Such a system could also allow power suppliers the flexibility to shift supply depending on variations in weather.
But some residents in those areas don’t want power lines crossing their property. One project, called the Grain Belt Express and intended to run from Kansas to Illinois, is on hold after being voted down by the Missouri Public Service Commission. There was considerable opposition from landowners, who worried the lines would be unsightly or interfere with farming. Some area residents also objected to the idea of companies building on Missourians’ land in order to sell power elsewhere.
Transmission lines are generally safe, but they would change the appearance of open space in the West and the Midwest. In some cases, lines can be placed underground. But underground lines are far more expensive to construct and maintain than aboveground lines, and lower costs would translate into lower electricity rates for consumers. Lower rates could also speed the nation’s transition from gas-powered cars to hybrid and electric vehicles, further reducing emissions.
Clean Line Energy Partners, the company behind the Grain Belt Express, plans to submit a new application to the Missouri Public Service Commission later this year. The company recently won approval from the Department of Energy for transmission lines stretching from Oklahoma to Tennessee. Clean Line will pay landowners the full market value for easements of land it builds on, plus an annual payment for each structure it builds on their property.
To bring landowners on board, companies will have to pay good prices and be sensitive to local concerns, involving communities early in the planning process. But the country won’t be able to make a swift transition to renewable energy if landowners and local regulators stand in the way.
This article was originally published on March 06, 2016 on PRI and written byAdam Wernick.
A new study from NOAA shows that, by building new high-tech transmission lines, the US could slash energy sector global warming emissions by 80 percent within 15 years, while keeping consumer costs low and meeting increased demand.
Alexander MacDonald, a co-author of the study and the recently retired director of NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, says studying the national weather map gave him the idea.
“I heard people talking about how renewable energy doesn’t work because it’s intermittent, and I remember saying, ‘It’s intermittent if you just have it over a really small area, but weather is big,’” MacDonald recalls. “If you look at a weather map, you see, for example, a giant high [pressure system] in the western United States and a low [pressure system] that’s windy in the east, and you can kind of deduce that if you can share the power over a large area, then it’s not intermittent. So I wanted to find out if that was true.”
MacDonald’s study, called NEWS, the National Electricity with Weather System, began six years ago. It uses a complicated optimization model based on weather forecasting to analyze the cost of energy production.
“I decided, with my team, that we would do a ‘cost minimization,’ MacDonald explains. “In other words, we would allow wind, solar and other sources, like natural gas, and even nuclear and coal, to be part of the study and we would minimize the total cost of the system, with the requirement that it supplied electric energy to 250 places over the United States every hour for a year.”
The team found that the larger the geographic area, the more effectively wind and solar can compete with other energy sources — for the exact reason MacDonald hypothesized. He explains it this way:
“In a small area, if the wind stops in part of the area, it stops over most of the area. Take the state of Kansas: if it’s not blowing on one side of Kansas, it’s probably not blowing on the other side. However, if you take the whole [lower] 48 states, you can always find places where it is pretty windy. That’s essentially what the study showed us.”
The study had another intriguing result: It showed that renewable energy can compete on price even without a major breakthrough in battery storage technology.
“We included storage as one of the things we could use,” MacDonald says. “We included transmission where we could move power over a small area or we could move it over the whole country. We basically said to this optimization [program], ‘You choose what is the best option.’”
The optimization chose transmitting power across the country as the least expensive way to use wind and solar energy. “It showed that we could have costs of electricity about the same as today, but it would reduce carbon dioxide up to 80 percent — so I think it’s a pretty important result,” MacDonald says.
There is a possible downside to the findings. In order for the system to work as efficiently as MacDonald and his team calculate, the nation would have to build massive transmission lines that would send high voltage direct current from coast to coast.
These lines can transmit “huge amounts of electric energy a long ways, but still within the cost envelope of the studies that we looked at,” MacDonald says.
But recent history has shown that people strongly oppose these powerful transmission lines passing through their neighborhoods or across their farms.
“I think people are going to have to weigh it like everything else,” MacDonald says. “If we want to preserve the future, this shows policymakers a way to do it — and it’s not for free. You might have to have overland lines; you might have to pay extra money — say, add a penny per kilowatt hour to your electric bill to have underground lines. But it gives us an option to have a low-carbon and low-cost energy economy, and we think that’s a pretty valuable possibility.”
Rooftop solar is without question the poster child of the clean energy revolution, with good reason: it’s visible, increasingly affordable, and growing explosively. Dubbed “power to the people” by leading environmental author and activist Bill McKibben, rooftop solar now symbolizes green commitment for the left and bootstrap self-reliance for the right. It would be hard to blame anyone for concluding that the shiny panels dotting communities everywhere were the principal drivers of America’s transition to clean energy.
Except that they’re not.
The truth is that the vast majority of America’s wind and solar electricity – more than 85 percent – comes from large scale facilities. Virtually all wind power comes from utility-scale installations in places so remote that they’re rarely seen by anyone who is not operating them. More than half of all solar panels in the U.S. are in vast arrays capable of powering tens of thousands of homes. Solar on residential rooftops is growing rapidly, but accounts for just 20 percent of total U.S. solar electric capacity, a proportion that will fall further as large scale installations grow.
Bigger is Cheaper
Economies of scale – the principle that the cost of making a unit of something falls as you produce more of them – applies to renewable energy just as it has to countless other products, from Henry Ford’s Model T’s to flat screen TVs. Large wind turbines produce energy for pennies on the dollar compared to small turbines suitable for commercial or residential settings. Taller towers reach stronger and more consistent winds at higher elevations, and longer blades capture more of the wind’s energy in each sweep. Despite using identical photovoltaic (PV) technology, large scale solar arrays generate electricity at less than half the cost of panels on a typical home (installed costs per watt dc: $1.38 for utility scale vs. $3.55 for residential). Superior resource quality is a big driver of lower costs: utility-scale developers target very windy and sunny places far from where most people live. Large solar arrays save even more money by cutting unit installation costs and by ensuring that each panel sits at the optimal angle to the sun (not an option for most residential rooftops).
Bigger Networks Connect More Renewables – and Improve Their Performance
Moving power hundreds of miles from remote wind and solar facilities to customers is much more efficient than widely believed. In 2013, just 5% of the power generated on the U.S. grid was lost on wires, and most of that “line loss” occurred at the distribution level. Transmission is the smallest part of the average electric bill, only 9% compared with more than 65% for generation. Generation cost savings from large scale wind and solar facilities are so large that they recoup the cost of transmission lines needed to connect them rapidly. Regional transmission investments in Texas, California, the Southwest Power Pool, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator are delivering enormous amounts of large scale wind at net savings to customers. Benefits to electricity customers typically exceed costs by factors of 3 to 1 or more, and include reduced energy costs, congestion relief, improved reliability, reduced capacity costs, improved market liquidity and competition, and emissions reductions.
Robust regional transmission grids squeeze more kilowatts out of every wind and solar facility by finding demand whenever the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. When the grid is constrained, excess wind and solar generation are “curtailed,” i.e. wasted or dumped to avoid dangerously overloading the grid. Transmission expansions eliminate these losses, making wind and solar generators even more efficient and valuable. Texas wind curtailments plummeted from 17% in 2009 to 0.5% in 2014 – even as total wind generation nearly doubled – thanks primarily to well-planned transmission expansions and upgrades completed in 2013.
Big Solutions for a Huge Challenge
Small may be beautiful, but the global climate challenge is anything but small. The landmark agreement negotiated in Paris last year provided another stark reminder of its staggering magnitude. Avoiding catastrophic climate change impacts means reducing global carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, with even steeper cuts in the electric sector. Big, cheap, and abundant wind and solar, enabled by expanded and upgraded regional transmission networks, are quietly leading the transition away from aging fossil power plants and toward an affordable, reliable, and universally accessible clean energy future. America has more than enough wind and solar to power everything – including transportation – dozens of times over. The key to capturing this potential is doubling down on the big solutions that are working better, cheaper, and faster than anything else.
There’s enough untapped wind howling across the vast plains of Oklahoma and Kansas to generate more electricity than a dozen nuclear power plants. What’s missing are transmission lines to ship it from spinning turbines to faraway homes and businesses.
That’s why Clean Line Energy Partners LLC plans to spend $9 billion on power transmission across the Great Plains, Midwest and the Southwest, including a 720-mile (1,158-kilometer) proposal awaiting approval from the U.S. Energy Department. It would be one of the longest high-voltage direct current lines built in a generation, and is among at least 11 proposed projects that may open up vast expanses for wind and solar farms with more than 26 gigawatts of capacity.
Renewable energy advocates say long-distance transmission will tap the wind and solar potential of the Great Plains and Sun Belt the way pipelines opened up once-inaccessible oil fields in Alaska and Siberia. These projects are seen as essential to helping states comply with President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which requires them to reduce emissions from power plants, and will help the U.S. meet its goals of getting 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
“It doesn’t take a genius to say that the challenge is on the transmission side,” said Michael Skelly, president of Houston-based Clean Line. “That would enable a lot of renewable energy projects.”
It’s not easy to build transmission lines across vast regions of the country. The permitting process varies by state and can take a decade. Opposition can be fierce from landowners who don’t want high-voltage lines lines cutting through their farms or backyards. And officials can be leery of supporting projects that ships power through their jurisdiction only to deliver it to another state.
Clean Line, which is proposing five separate lines, asked Iowa regulators to suspend review of its 500-mile Rock Island line last year as the company plots its course through the approval process amid opposition from landowners. In July, Missouri’s Public Service Commission voted to block the company’s 780-mile Grain Belt Express line, saying the developer hadn’t proven the need for the $2 billion project.
“Transmission is the industry’s biggest long-term opportunity,” said Rob Gramlich, a senior vice president at the American Wind Energy Association, a Washington-based trade group. “But it’s also its biggest challenge.”
Clean Line was founded in 2009 by Skelly, a veteran of Horizon Wind Energy, which Goldman Sachs Group Inc. sold to EDP-Energias de Portugal SA in 2007. Clean Line is backed by ZBI Ventures, the investment firm controlled by the Ziff family.
The project awaiting final approval from the Energy Department, the Plains & Eastern Clean Line, will cost as much as $2.5 billion. It will be able to carry as much as 4,000 megawatts of power, linking wind farms in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas with utilities in Tennessee, Arkansas and elsewhere in the Southeast.
The company plans to break ground next year and expects to complete it by 2020. East Texas Electric Cooperative agreed in May to buy 50 megawatts of capacity on the line.
Other developers are planning long-haul lines to move clean power across the country.
Anbaric Transmission is developing two projects in New England with National Grid Plc. A 250-mileline from wind farms in Maine to Boston is awaiting state approval. A 60-mile link from upstate New York wind farms to Vermont may be complete by 2020 and the Chicago developer Invenergy LLC and the Canadian utility Hydro-Quebec have both agreed to use it. Anbaric hasn’t determined costs for either project.
Vermont, New York
Transmission Developers Inc., backed by Blackstone Group LP, has proposed two lines to ship energy from Canadian hydro plants to Vermont and New York City, with a total estimated cost of $3.4 billion. And SunZia Transmission LLC is awaiting state approval for a pair of 515-mile lines that will cost $1.2 billion and will carry power from solar and wind farms in New Mexico to customers in Arizona and California.
Amy Grace, Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s lead wind analyst, said the question remains whether it would be cheaper to build wind farms on the outskirts of cities, where land prices are higher but transmission is easier.
“Will the cost of building wind in the central regions be so much cheaper than building wind closer to demand centers?” Grace said.
Filling a Gap
“Up until the last 10 years, no one had given much consideration to long-haul transmission,” says Bill Miller, president and CEO of TransWest Express LLC, which is planning a 730-mile line from Wyoming to Las Vegas. The Denver-based company plans to start construction in 2017 on the $3 billion project, which needs federal approval.
Most recent transmission projects are shorter lines designed to increase the reliability of grids, rather than send power long distances, said James Hoecker, counsel to Wires, the transmission industry’s Washington-based trade group. Utilities typically don’t have much motivation to build long lines that extend beyond their service areas.
Clean Line and the other developers are seeking to fill that gap. Because local power companies are usually state-based and state-regulated, Skelly said they don’t focus on how to serve entire regions, or how to run wires from wind-whipped plains to energy-hungry cities.
“Utilities don’t wake up thinking, ‘how do I get power to Atlanta?’” he said.
This article was originally published by Enerknol on January 4, 2016.
Transmission investments are becoming increasingly important to deliver electricity from new renewable generators, as the most productive areas for wind, solar, and geothermal locations are often located far from population centers. Retirement of coal plants and nuclear plants also contribute to shifts in power flows across the transmission system. However, lengthy, complicated, and costly siting and permitting processes continue to hinder installation of new transmission lines and upgrading existing ones. Since multiple federal, state, and local government agencies are involved in right-of-way authorizations and environmental permitting, inter-agency coordination is critical. Utility decisions to make long-term investments and investors’ decisions to commit capital to facilitate such investments rely on stable and predictable regulations.
The location of large-scale wind farms in remote areas creates a need for additional transmission capacity, which has been difficult to achieve due to planning and permitting hurdles that can cause delays and cost increases for new transmission projects. As solar plants increase in size, they, too, will face increasing transmission challenges. While regulatory efforts allow for inter-agency and inter-regional coordination to encourage transmission development, increased regulatory certainty to ensure adequate returns and timeliness of reviews will facilitate implementation of planned investments.
An upgraded, reliable and efficient transmission system is critical to maximize the use of lower-emitting sources and renewable resources to meet the emissions reduction goals under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP). The United States has approximately 642,000 miles of high-voltage (34 kV and greater) transmission lines, running from generating plants to step-down substations, which reduce the voltage and connect the transmission network to the distribution grid serving retail customers. Transmission upgrades will support the growing use of distributed resources to improve the flexibility and resilience of the system. These grid upgrades will also facilitate wholesale market competition and include advanced monitoring systems and technologies to ensure grid resiliency and flexibility.