Posts Tagged ‘FERC’

h1

Pat Wood: The Texas Tribune Interview

April 23, 2012

Michael Giberson

Pat Wood, the former FERC chairman and former Texas PUC chairman, was interviewed recently by The Texas Tribune. Wood is surely one of KP‘s favorite ex-regulators, so of course we’re linking to the interview. Here’s just one bit:

Wood: … There is also a lot that can be done, particularly on the energy demand side. By that I mean more aggressive conservation programs where you let market signals encourage customers that have the ability to shut down for a certain small amount of hours in the day to get paid to do so.

TT: Do you mean even individual consumers can potentially do more — or be helped to do more — to save energy?

Wood: They could, but if you went from the current penetration we have today, which is focused on the largest customers, to then focus on the medium-sized customers  — and by that I mean grocery stores, shopping centers, Target, customers like that — you can pick up a whole lot more responsive load before you need to get to the residential customer. The residential customers comprise about 40 percent of the [electrical] load at peak. Industrial and commercial are each about 30 percent. That’s a lot of lower-hanging fruit to pick before you get to residential.

And in discussing this, I’m not saying that Target would have to bid to shut down a store to get paid; it would maybe curtail 20 percent of its demand from 4 to 6 pm [when electricity usage peaks].

This capacity tightening may force that day to come sooner rather than later, which I think is a great thing for Texas, to latch onto this smart-grid investment that we’ve been making statewide over the past couple of years into a level of demand responsiveness that really moves our grid to 21st century capability well ahead of the other states.

Wood also addresses the lack of incentives to build new plants in Texas, the prospects for wind and solar in the state, energy storage, and among other things the role of the Public Utility Commission after the state “moved the dial from 10 to 4 in terms of regulation.”

h1

NERC, FERC, and FRCC agree on 2008 Florida blackout

March 10, 2010

Michael Giberson

From a NERC press release:

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) have reached an agreement regarding the role of the FRCC Reliability Coordinator in the February 26, 2008 power outage that left nearly one million homes and businesses in the state without electricity…. Under the agreement, FRCC will pay a $350,000 civil penalty, to be split equally between the United States Treasury and NERC.

The agreement closes a joint NERC-FERC investigation into FRCC’s part in the event. Funds received by NERC will be used to offset its operating expenses, which are otherwise collected through allocations to load-serving entities in the U.S. and Canada.

The agreement is available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_FRCC_Settlement_03052010.pdf.

The agreement contains a summary of the events leading to the Florida blackout:

4.  On February 26, 2008, portions of the lower two-thirds of the State of Florida experienced a loss of load event more commonly referred to as the Florida Blackout. The event led to the loss of 22 transmission lines, 4,300 MW of generation, and 3,650 MW of customer service or load.

5.  The event originated at the Flagami Substation on the FPL system when a field engineer was diagnosing a piece of BES transmission equipment that had previously malfunctioned. In the process, he disabled two levels of protection on equipment energized and connected to the BES and a “fault” (short circuit) occurred that resulted in transmission outages in the vicinity of the fault as well as generation and distribution outages across portions of the southern two-thirds of the state. The disabling of protection introduced the potential for much more significant contingencies within the FRCC footprint, but the operator fulfilling the RC function was not informed that any protection had been disabled and therefore could not and did not operate the system recognizing these contingencies.

6. At the time of the event, the FPL System Operator was also acting as the RC. Immediately after the event, he delegated his RC responsibilities to a NERC-certified operator present in the control center, but who was not involved in operations that day. The original operator maintained responsibility for the FPL system. The new operator performing the RC function then had to assess the extent of the impacted load and canvass the system operators state-wide in order to initiate restoration. During the event, when issuing directives, the RC operators did not use the three-step communication process, direct-repeat-acknowledge. Nonetheless, restoration of the system occurred in a relatively reliable and expeditious manner.

In October 2009, Florida Power and Light was assessed a $25 million civil penalty for its role in the blackout and agreed to make several improvements to systems and practices affecting reliability.

h1

Pat Wood joins the ranks of energy bloggers

March 5, 2010

Michael Giberson

The Houston Chronicle has added another voice to its roster of energy bloggers: Pat Wood III.  Wood is former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and before that chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (though around here they usually list those two items the other way.  In order of importance, you know).

The blog, Wood on the Wires, is subtitled “Energy infrastructure with Pat Wood.”  As the Chronicle’s NewsWatch: Energy blog says in its introduction, “His inaugural post shows a bit of the humor that anyone who knows Pat is sure to recognize.”

h1

Tres Amigas wants to take cheap electric power away from hard-working Texas families

February 8, 2010

Michael Giberson

I spent the middle of last week in Austin at the University of Texas-Law conference on wind, solar and geothermal energy law, and as a side bonus got to hear some informal, Austin-based commentary on the Tres Amigas proposal to interconnect the Eastern, Western, and Texas electric grids. It will give you some idea of the thinking in the state capital that I heard the term “Dos Amigas” used more than a few times.

During the pre-conference “fundamentals” discussion, in response to a question that asked whether stronger transmission links to other states would help accommodate added growth in Texas wind power, a current member of the Public Utility Commission of Texas arose from the audience, climbed onto the dais, and took the microphone to say, among other things, “ERCOT is just fine the way it is.” The other main point of his comment was to suggest that the Southwest Power Pool, which has long covered the wind resource rich Texas Panhandle (with relatively weak links elsewhere, but a plan to beef up those links), would ably serve to sell the wind resource out of state while not compromising ERCOT’s jurisdictional status with respect to the feds.

Later in the conference a speaker offered a Texas policymaker’s view: ERCOT has its well-regarded CREZ plan to spend $5 billion on transmission enhancements primarily intended to allow wind generation in far west Texas, central west Texas, and the Texas panhandle to be delivered downstate to consumers in the Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio regions. If those lines link to Tres Amigas, then the prospect arises that consumers elsewhere will – in effect – “drink our milkshake.” Texas policymakers don’t want other consumers to drink our milkshake, especially after ERCOT consumers spend $5 billion to build there own transmission “straw” into the Panhandle region.  (Yeah, I watched “There Will Be Blood” a week or so ago, hence the milkshake and straw references. The presenter did not use this language.)

Peter Behr, writing for ClimateWire, has a more journalistic report on the debate over Tres Amigas. Behr reports that Occidental Petroleum – a large power consumer within the ERCOT region – has actively opposed the Tres Amigas project in filings at FERC, as has the Texas Industrial Energy Consumers. I haven’t read their filings, but apparently they believe ERCOT power prices will be higher on average with Tres Amigas than without, and as consumers they prefer lower prices.

In my opinion, however, they are more likely to get slightly lower (and somewhat less volatile) prices with better links to the rest of the grid.  That’s the way market expansion usually works.

Tres Amigas posts its FERC filings and related documents on its website. Here are links to a couple of the opposing views filed at FERC.  The “Supplemental Protest of Occidental…” includes the expert witness testimony that Behr discusses in his story:

Not all Texas policymakers oppose Tres Amigas. Member of Congress Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) sent FERC a letter indicating the project would encourage investment in renewable power and urging the Commission to give the project a “fair and deliberate view.”  And, as the ClimateWire story suggests, developers aiming to exploit the extensive power generation potential of the region are strongly behind the project.

h1

Texas and the Tres Amigas interconnection

January 13, 2010

Michael Giberson

Over the holiday NYTimes.com posted a story by ClimateWire reporter Peter Behr that does a pretty good job of describing the proposed Tres Amigas project (proposing to link the three main electric regions in the U.S. – Eastern, Western, and Texas) and surrounding issues.  Among other things, the story provides a good short summary of the Federal/Texas jurisdictional relationship, which stands as one challenge to success:

The developers have also asked FERC for a second ruling disclaiming jurisdiction over transmission providers that tie into the Tres Amigas lines and in effect, to maintain Texas’ jurisdictional independence. “Clearly, if we don’t the jurisdiction disclaimer, I can’t imagine how we get support for this in Texas,” [Tres Amigas attorney David] Raskin says.

Echoing the state’s Alamo heritage and a tenacious attachment to its independence, Texas’ largest utilities cut their power line connections with other states in 1935, after passage of the Federal Power Act in the New Deal, to keep Washington from asserting jurisdiction over their operations. (Texas had no state regulation of utilities before the 1970s, notes Judge Richard Cudahy of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals).

In one famous showdown, a Texas utility — Central and Southwest Corp. — did create a transmission link between its divisions in Texas and Oklahoma to preserve its status as an interstate electric power holding company. At night on May 4, 1976, a technician opened a switch at a CSW substation sending power surreptitiously from Vernon, Texas to Altus, Okla., according to Cudahy’s account of the “midnight connection.”

Since Texas’ other major utilities were linked to CSW, their power was also flowing in interstate commerce. Several hours later, Texas utilities were informed of these events, and two of the largest responded in outrage by severing their transmission ties to CSW, at some risk to the state’s entire grid.

The Tres Amigas petition to FERC says that because energy is converted from an AC wave to a DC electronic pulse and then back into an AC wave synchronized with the receiving grid, the electrons in Texas are not “free flowing” into New Mexico or Oklahoma, preserving Texas’ separation.

The Tres Amigas jurisdictional request submitted to FERC offers more detail (FERC docket number EL10-22-000) and for further background I’d recommend the chapter on the subject by Darren Bush and David Spence in Electric Restructuring: The Texas Story (the book recently published by AEI Press edited by Lynne and Andy Kleit).

h1

State legislatures and PUCs prefer high annual electricity bills for retail customers

September 1, 2009

Michael Giberson

According to a new paper by Jim Bushnell, Ben Hobbs and Frank Wolak, “the desire of [state] legislatures and state PUCs to protect consumers from wholesale price volatility comes at a cost we believe few consumers would be willing to pay if it were made explicit, higher annual electricity bills.”

And it isn’t just state politicians that come under criticism, the paper is titled, “When it comes to demand response, is FERC its own worst enemy?“  The authors say yes.

(And in related news, Bushnell now holds the Cargill chair in energy economics at Iowa State University.)

h1

FERC is to ERCOT as SPIDER is to ______.

May 6, 2009

Michael Giberson

“Will you step into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly;
“’Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many pretty things to show when you are there.”

Jon Wellinghoff, the chief spider at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, invited ERCOT to step into the federal parlor. Or, at least, that is what it will sound like to some folks in the ERCOT area.

Actually, Platts reported FERC chairman Wellinghoff was only suggesting that the “Electric Reliability Council of Texas should consider increasing the capacity of ERCOT’s now-minimal interconnects with neighboring grids.”

“If Texas could be more strongly interconnected to the Midwest, forexample, they could integrate even more wind into the system,” Wellinghoff said in a teleconference from Chicago.

“It would be a benefit to them, from that standpoint, and should be something that they ought to consider. Maybe we could still give them an exemption from FERC,” Wellinghoff said, making a reference to ERCOT’s desire to remain largely outside FERC jurisdiction.

Did he say “Maybe we could still give them an exemption”? “Maybe”? Just “maybe”?

Wellinghoff is going to have to be a little more wily if he hopes to get this particular fly into the FERC parlor.

By the way, there are sound economic reasons for strengthening interties between the regions. And whether or not the interties are strenghtened, the rules governing power flows over interties could be made more dynamic and responsive to changing spot prices in the two regions. But for some of the same reasons that federalists applaud states as “laboratories of democracy,” it is useful to have a part of the U.S. power system under somewhat separate regulatory authority. ERCOT can do its own thing to a degree not possible elsewhere in the States, and FERC and the rest of the world can learn from the successes and failures.

However, there is an alternative to strenghtening the interties between ERCOT and the Eastern Interconnection (and banking on the “maybe exemption”), and that is to expand existing transmission lines from the Southwest Power Pool into the wind power rich areas of central west Texas, and allow wind farms in the region to choose between delivering into SPP or into ERCOT.

It is already the case that ERCOT will build power lines into the Panhandle and South Plains portions of Texas, an area long outside of ERCOT and in SPP, in order to encourage wind power resource development in that area.  Another transmission project proposes to reach out from ERCOT to interconnect generation currently linked to the Entergy Texas system in the southeast corner of the state. A few existing generators are connected both to ERCOT and to the Eastern Interconnection.  So this kind of competition around the ERCOT fringes is already happening a tiny bit.

SPP is already planning to add more transmission capability into the Panhandle and South Plains part of Texas.  All the feds would need to do is encourage SPP to add lines a little deeper into the state, and the PUC of Texas should accommodate the effort.  Overlapping transmission capability would make it easier for both systems to accommodate variable wind power output.

The move would enhance wholesale power competition in the region and encourage the development of renewable energy resources, both priorities of the current Commission.

ERCOT may well be wary of too readily accepting the Chairman’s invitation. The fable of the spider and the fly turned out badly in the end, from the fly’s point of view. But there is real value from increasing the ability to trade power between systems, so some sort of deal should be pursued.

(N.B.: When you go into arm’s length negotiation with a spider, always remember it has eight arms.)

h1

FERC’s smart grid policy statement

March 19, 2009

Michael Giberson

FERC has posted it’s proposed smart grid policy statement and invited comments (comments due 45 days after the statement is published in the Federal Register).  FERC offers this summary:

This proposed policy statement and action plan provides guidance to inform the development of a smarter grid for the Nation’s electric transmission system focusing on the development of key standards to achieve interoperability of smart grid devices and systems. The Commission also proposes a rate policy for the interim period until interoperability standards are adopted. Smart grid investments that demonstrate system security and compliance with Commission-approved Reliability Standards, the ability to be upgraded, and other specified criteria will be eligible for timely rate recovery and other rate treatments. This rate policy will encourage development of smart grid systems.

FERC’s efforts are directed toward transmission issues, where it has uncontested jurisdiction (more or less).  Let us hope that we don’t end of with 50+ different state and local policy statements addressing local area wires infrastructure and retail power trading.

The archived webcast of today’s FERC meeting, which did focus on the smart grid policy statement, is now available, or you can download the 31-minute smart grid discussion in mp3 format – just long enough for the typical automobile commute.

h1

Smart grid federal policy

March 16, 2009

Michael Giberson

As Lynne just noted, this week Chicago is hosting GridEcon, a conference on smart grid economics.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., the agenda for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission meeting this week indicates that the Commission will be issuing a policy statement on smart grid policy.

No preliminary statements have been made under the docket number listed for the policy statement, PL09-4-000. The interested reader should visit the FERC homepage on March 19, where related information likely will be featured under the “What’s New” header, or check out the calendar event page after the meeting.  Of course, you can also check back here for commentary from Lynne or me, after the policy statement is out.

The very interested reader may want to consider watching the meeting webcast live, since this seems like the kind of topic that would be discussed at the meeting.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t guarantee a smart grid discussion. If you end up sitting through hours of webcast discussion examining mandatory reliability standards — agenda items E-5, E-6, and E-9 — followed by details of years-old California market melt-down inspired contractual disputes — E-10, E-18 and E-20 — without the word “smart” passing a Commissioner’s lips, well that’s your tough luck. Live beginning about 10 AM EDT on March 19, at your own risk.

March 19 UPDATE: FERC’s news release on their smart grid policy statement.  FERC Fact Sheet. Also, visit FERC’s smart grid page.  FERC invited comments on the proposed policy statement, which will be due 45 days after the statement is published in the Federal Register.  Staff presentations, commissioner statements, and related information available from the calendar event page.

The archived webcast should be available later today at http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu/ferc/ferc.htm (available for about 3 months). The smart grid policy statement was the only discussion item for the meeting according to the Supplemental Notice on the agenda.

h1

Draft Report to Congress on Wholesale and Retail Competition in Electricity

June 6, 2006

Lynne Kiesling

Yesterday the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released the draft Report to Congress on Competition in the Wholesale and Retail Markets for Electric Energy on behalf of the Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force. This report, required by Section 1815 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, provides an overview and summarizes the progress toward wholesale and retail competition over the past 25 years, the current state of wholesale and retail competition in the U.S., and the economic and political issues surrounding the transition to wholesale and retail competition.

Read the rest of this entry ?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers