August, the Month of Energy Sector Discontent

August, the Month of Energy Sector Discontent

By
August 28, 2015

The eighth month of the year has historically been very special for the US energy sector. The Northeast Blackout of 2003, the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, and the Clean Power Plan and Methane Emission Reduction Policy proposal of 2015 each had immense impacts on the industry and originated in August. Whether their birthdays are coincidental or not, logically they are connected with one another in a very curious manner.

In August of 2003, a massive blackout left 50 million electricity users in Northeast Canada and the United States in darkness for several days. Even though that disturbance was nowhere near the expanse of the 2012 blackout in India with 620 million left without electricity, the US regulatory impact from this event was disproportionately enormous. The reaction from the government authorities to the Indian blackout was a three-person committee investigation that issued a report with series of recommendations. North Americans had a bit more thorough take. A joint US-Canadian government federal taskforce investigation concluded that the cause of such disaster was absence of mandatory reliability standards. Two years later, in August 2005, the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) was signed into law by US President George W. Bush. This legislature set up the framework for mandatory requirements for reliability of services provided by operators of bulk electric systems. By the way, it was the second time lawmakers got very serious about reliability. An earlier joint US-Canadian blackout in 1965 set the foundation for creation of NERC itself; forty years later, EPAct made these reliability standards developed by NERC mandatory, and NERC was given the authority to enforce compliance with these standards.

On August 7, 2015, Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO), one of the NERC’s subsidiaries, released a “Happy Birthday” wish to EPAct. A classy congratulatory press release contained a reminder about the mandate of the industry to “provide a critical public service . . . one that needs to be protected” in ensuring a highly reliable regional bulk power system. I dare to speculate that probably this so unconventionally delivered message about “where the MRO’s heart is” has something to do with the EPA’s progressive march towards cleaner power generation. Several days prior to this message, on August 3, 2015, EPA introduced a revised version of the Clean Power Plan, which, according to EPA, offers more flexibility to the states in meeting compliance with reducing CO2 emissions. Maybe there was some flexibility added; however, the target compliance year has been moved up by two years, making this plan more ambitious. This historic document mandates the electric sector to reduce CO2 emissions by 32% below the 2005 level by 2030. Each state was given an individual target by EPA calculated on the basis of weighted average of 2012 fossil fueled-fired electrical generation introduced to reflect each state’s unique power supply mix. The selected algorithm created very interesting outcomes. Just look at how some of the 2012 emissions versus reduction targets for 2030, both in lbs/Net MWh, and percentage of such reduction targets are distributed:

  • Mississippi 1185 => 945; 20%
  • Louisiana 1618 => 1121; 31%
  • Alabama 1518 => 1018; 33%
  • New Mexico 1798 => 1146; 36%
  • Arkansas 1779 => 1130; 37%
  • West Virginia 2064 => 1305; 37%

According to Forbes, the states above are some of the poorest states, with the lowest income. The poorest states will have to cut emissions at very high rate, up to 37%. Switching to intermittent renewables requiring more investments in system upgrades, storage, and ancillary services is unlikely to be that magic wand that will transform economies of those states from ashes to riches. The opposite outcome is more likely.

Even higher emission reduction rates are set for the state of Minnesota (40%) and North Dakota (45%), the MRO subjects. With such high targets in sight, it is no surprise MRO released that “happy anniversary to our reliability mandate” message. EPA, FERC, and DOE announced that these three agencies will coordinate their efforts in ensuring reliable power supply during the Clean Power Plan implementation. EPA emphasizes that targets can be met through various measures, and states are not limited only to renewables; they can also do so by increasing efficiency and/or introducing carbon trading systems. Besides, multiple states can combine efforts in order to meet goals as part of the grid. However, being part of the grid as a solution raises few question:

  • How the jurisdictional authority will be decided on since the Clean Power Plan is developed for specific states while a grid is usually managed by independent entities, such as ISOs and RTOs, which spread over multiple regions but do not necessarily cover complete states geographically? Will states have the authority over system operators to dictate dispatch rules?
  • Will FERC have to develop regulations for energy dispatch to meet EPA’s requirements? Does that mean that FERC will have to follow the EPA’s directives?
  • Will the market-based economic energy dispatch become obsolete?

Questions go on and on. Strange thing: despite the grievance given to fossil-fueled generators, many environmentalists are not happy either. “Too little, too late” and “only negative emissions can save us” is their common rhetoric even though EPA did not concentrate their efforts on power sector only. On August 18, 2015, EPA released a proposal on reducing methane emissions from oil and natural gas production – the first-time ever federal attempt to establish standards for new and modified sources. The industries did not take the announced proposal warmheartedly stating that the methane emissions have been falling consistently in the last years and the new standards will be just an additional bureaucratic burden on the system. And hear what the environmentalists are saying: “not enough, they should put standards on abandoned and existing sources as well.”

In August 2015, the energy industry did not see many happy campers. Oh, wait, litigators might not be too sad – it is highly doubtful that entities subject to those strict restrictions will jump to developing compliance plans without trying to bring EPA to court.

Post a Comment


Next
Next

More Articles on Editorial

Data Smartens up in a Fog

Those who are part of the data management game can juggle terms like Hadoop, NoSQL, and RDBMS freely. However, for those who are not in the game, this lingo will likely carry the same meaning as a proclamation of goodwill ... Read more »

The Year-end Review and Future Projections: Awaiting More Synergy between the Energy Sector and IT

Lacking originality, we are closing 2015 with the yearly review and endeavored predictions of the near future; this time however, we will look at the energy sector in conjunction with data business and software solutions. The energy sector has been ... Read more »

Data Security + Data Surveillance = More Data Business

In today’s fast paced business environment, risk is everywhere and data security is rapidly changing. However, few things remain unchanged: hackers will create more sophisticated scripts to get around your security fortresses trying to steal your identity, money, and corporate ... Read more »

Natural Gas Coasts Along, while Other Energy Markets Test Rollercoasters

I do not recall more confusion and misalignment in the energy sector as is happening now. Any correlation and interdependency that existed previously among oil, coal, natural gas, and electricity markets seem to have evaporated; a multiplicity of independent events ... Read more »

Intermittent Success in the Battle between Coal and Renewables

On June 29, 2015, industry newsmakers announced “a blow” to President Obama’s environmental plan. On that day, the US Supreme Court overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) limiting mercury and other hazardous air pollutants ... Read more »

Tesla’s Off-grid Power Storage Batteries: More Questions on Load Forecasting and Data

Tesla’s announcement last month of new energy storage batteries was positioned to mark a major milestone on the road towards a clean and sustainable future. Storage that is on the end-user’s side is being viewed, at least by some, as ... Read more »

Crude Oil Transportation by Rail: More than the Industry Bargained For?

An announcement by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) about the new set of oil statistics missed the spotlight. Really, what’s so special about adding another data report that only expands on the list of transportation options for the same ... Read more »

Nasdaq Adds to the Energy Derivatives Markets and Steps in against CME and ICE

I admire the valor of Nasdaq – daring to enter the energy derivatives market space that has been dominated by two giants, CME and ICE. Nasdaq, operating mainly in stock markets, though with some exposure to European power markets, decided ... Read more »

Data Sources: NASDAQ OMX

The Emerging Power Markets’ New Player – the Microgrid Operator

The concept of microgrids is gaining momentum; their share in the energy space is growing. The microgrid is not a novel concept, as in most remote communities self-containment is the only feasible approach to power supply. For many years, localities without ... Read more »

State of the Union Address: Dominating the World Energy Markets and Losing to Congress

The State of the Union Address, the speech delivered by the US President at a joint session of the US Congress, is the most highly anticipated public announcement of the year for many industries, including energy. But the state of ... Read more »

 

Page 1 of 512345