Alternative technologies key to FERC transmission orders' success: ACORE
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Orders 1920 and 1920-A create space for a more holistic transmission planning framework marked by collaboration between transmission providers and state utility regulators, according to an American Council on Renewable Energy report published in April.
Alternative transmission technologies, or ATTs, mentioned in the orders — dynamic line ratings, advanced power flow control, transmission switching and high-performance conductors — can speed development of a more reliable, resilient, efficient and ultimately cost-effective transmission network, principals with The Brattle Group and Grid Strategies said in 'Incorporating GETs and HPCs Into Transmission Planning Under FERC Order 1920.'
Transmission planners and state entities must overcome four key barriers to ATT implementation at scale: insufficient recognition of their value, misaligned incentives, overly static and deterministic planning practices, and an apparent lack of capacity to perform advanced system analyses, the report said.
Former FERC Commissioner Allison Clements hailed Order 1920 as 'a strong step that can considerably enhance grid reliability while making electricity more affordable for consumers' shortly after its issuance last May.
But Order 1920 was just an incremental step, one 'forged through compromise,' Clements said.
In November, after a diverse collection of clean energy groups and mostly Republican-controlled states challenged the order in federal courts, FERC issued a modified order that it said 'further enhances the role of Relevant State Entities in Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning, especially their role in shaping scenario development and cost allocation.' Among other enhancements, Order 1920-A requires transmission providers to incorporate state entities' input on planners' future scenario development in recognition that those scenarios will reflect states' own plans to meet legislative or regulatory obligations, FERC said.
While Order 1920 leaves the details of scenario development to transmission providers, it requires them to develop at least three 'plausible and diverse' scenarios identifying long-term transmission needs and solutions, quantify those solutions' benefits and establish a process for evaluating each solution, according to the ACORE report.
Order 1920 sets certain 'broad standards' for these evaluations that guide transmission providers toward more efficient and cost-effective facilities, ACORE said. It describes seven benefits that providers must consider, including: reduced loss of load probability or reduced capital costs to meet planning reserve margins; reduced transmission energy losses; reduced congestion due to transmission outages; and mitigation of extreme weather conditions and unexpected system conditions like those that may have contributed to the massive blackout in Spain and Portugal last month.
Compared with traditional wires-based solutions, ATTs are cheaper and faster to deploy, complementary to existing equipment, and — in the case of software- and controls-based grid-enhancing technologies — possible to reverse, ACORE said.
In fact, an ACORE review of 25 case studies conducted by transmission providers, power system consultants and others showed that ATTs delivered at least one of the seven benefits in each study. Several case studies showed two or more benefits from ATTs.
Relevant state entities can take advantage of their expanded latitude under Order 1920-A to advocate for consideration of additional benefits beyond the required seven, such as deployment time and optionality, that may favor ATTs, ACORE said. For example, grid-enhancing technologies' short payback periods mean transmission operators can cost-effectively deploy them as a temporary solution while planning for more permanent solutions, such as new wires.
Likewise, Orders 1920 and 1920-A allow relevant state entities and transmission customers to fund some or all transmission solution costs if they wish, which could improve the transmission providers' cost-benefit calculation for non-wires solutions. And given that transmission providers generally pass transmission costs onto customers, that approach could potentially overcome providers' traditional lack of incentive for cost avoidance, ACORE said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
CW To Big Three: NY Times Investigation Reveals East Coast Regional Grid Disaster And Shows Need To Shelve Western Regional Grid Plans In SB 540
SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog wrote to Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders today pointing out a new New York Times investigation about the failure of the East Coast regional grid as a cause to shelve plans for a West Coast regional grid that just passed the California Senate, SB 540 (Becker). "An investigation published today by the New York Times reveals such serious problems in pricing and reliability from the regional electricity grid manager PJM, which serves states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland, that five governors have been sharply critical and called for withdrawal or overhaul," Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court wrote. "Electricity prices have risen 40 percent over the last five years and reliability issues have deteriorated. PJM, for its part, pointed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the problem. Governors are left largely helpless to help their states because of FERC control. FERC for its part said the regional organizations are ineffective and FERC chair Mark Christie asked at a meeting last week if the organizations had failed and should be replaced." Read the letter and the investigation. "Given this record, why would California rush headlong into a regional market – particularly without the check and balance of the legislature getting to vote again before joining in 2027?" Court continued. "The reason is because industry and its powerful electricity workers union demand it. That's not good enough for consumers, for the environment, and it shouldn't be good enough for any of you. This investigation is a warning about what's to come if we don't learn from the experiences of the past and of other states. I urge you to take it seriously or the consequences will be shared by all of us." "What the problem is at PJM is that it is controlled and influenced by the corporate energy companies that constitute its membership," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a nonprofit research and consumer group. "It puts energy company lobbyists in the driver's seat at PJM." "What is clear from this story is that a regional market is no panacea for fulfilling the growing power needs of the state driven largely by AI data centers," said Court. "This is not the time to be throwing California's electricity needs to a regional organization that California cannot control and is not subject to California's price and reliability laws put in place post Enron. Yet that is exactly what SB 540 (Becker) does. It trusts the traders to create a viable system despite the evidence of their inability to do so elsewhere and their profit motive to make that system as expensive as possible." Court pointed to statements (transcript) by FERC Chairman Christie last week calling into question the viability of a regional organization to mediate between the interests of coal-using and non-coal-using states and the viability of the market itself. "After a quarter century of using these administrative constructs called markets, particularly capacity markets, is it time to say, and particularly with regard to the capacity markets, have they failed? And should they be replaced? And if they should be replaced, what should they be replaced with? That's a compelling question, and I think after 25 years, it is time to ask it." View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Consumer Watchdog Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Florida's Public Service Commission should push pause on FPL rate hikes
Recent hurricanes — Helene, Milton and Debby — were strong reminders of the importance of a resilient and reliable electric grid for Florida's families and businesses. Widespread outages and costly storm recovery efforts highlighted the urgent need to strengthen our energy infrastructure. But as we move forward, it's critical that we do so in a way that is effective and fiscally responsible. Florida already has the fourth-highest electric bills in the nation. As demand for power grows and weather patterns become more extreme, modernizing the electric grid is necessary — but it must be done with careful planning and oversight. Long-term investments should be guided by data, not rushed decisions that place higher costs and additional financial strain on consumers. That's why it's important that the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) not get ahead of the comprehensive planning requirements laid out by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Order 1920. This federal guidance encourages utilities to take a more strategic, long-term approach — one that can help lower costs, reduce outages and ensure reliability. One powerful way to support this smarter approach is through Grid Enhancing Technologies (GETs). A 2023 report by The Brattle Group found that GETs can play a valuable role in improving grid efficiency at every stage of transmission development — before, during and after construction. These technologies can relieve congestion, support system upgrades during construction and improve reliability once projects are completed — all while helping avoid unnecessary or premature capital spending. Opinion: Florida must strengthen its electrical grid before it's too late Despite asking for more time to update their long-term planning frameworks, Florida Power & Light (FPL) is already charging ahead with substantial infrastructure projects. FPL has proposed spending $325 million to rebuild an existing 500-kilovolt transmission line and an additional $700 million on other infrastructure. These are significant investments, and while they may prove beneficial, it's worth asking utilities to demonstrate whether there are more cost-effective options available. FPL's proposed rate increase — nearly 30% by 2029 — would impact households across the state. That's why it's essential regulators take a cautious, transparent approach that prioritizes consumer protection and long-term value. Opinion: Rolling the dice with Mother Nature: Trump's FEMA cuts would be a disaster The chief justice of Florida's Supreme Court recently described the PSC's process as a 'black box' and noted it relies heavily on the utilities' own narratives. Floridians deserve to know that utility investments are grounded in thorough planning, not made hastily or based solely on industry input. Florida's Public Service Commission should press pause on long-term rate hikes until utilities complete cost-effective, data-driven planning as required by FERC. By aligning with FERC's planning requirements and encouraging the use of proven, cost-effective technologies, Florida can build a modern, reliable grid that supports growth and withstands future challenges — without placing an undue burden on ratepayers. Now is the time to plan carefully, invest wisely and ensure every energy dollar delivers real value for the people of Florida. Dawn Shirreffs is the Florida director of the Environmental Defense Fund. This opinion piece was distributed by The Invading Sea, which publishes news and commentary on climate change and other environmental issues affecting Florida. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: FPL shouldn't hike electric rates without proper planning | Opinion
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Electrical manufacturers back bill to assess energy supply chain
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter. Legislation directing the U.S. secretary of energy to conduct assessments of the U.S. electricity generation and transmission supply chains was approved by a House energy subcommittee on Thursday and now goes to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Electric Supply Chain Act directs the energy secretary to prepare 'periodic assessments' that include 'any trends, risks, and vulnerabilities in the supply, demand, and availability of components for or related to generating or transmitting electricity, including components that are necessary for the construction or deployment of facilities that generate or transmit electricity.' The bill would require the secretary of energy to submit a report to Congress within one year of the legislation being enacted. The bill 'takes a proactive approach to identifying and addressing emerging issues that affect the power sector,' Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, said in April at a hearing on ensuring domestic energy reliability. Latta, who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on energy, introduced the legislation. Electrical equipment manufacturers say they support the bill. 'We must prioritize grid reliability by ensuring all relevant voices involved in supplying energy are at the table, including supply chain vendors and the manufacturers of critical grid components,' Spencer Pederson, senior vice president of public affairs for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, said in a statement. The legislation would allow grid component manufacturers and supply chain vendors to 'provide the energy sector with greater clarity around their current and future capacity, opportunities for growth, and challenges related to maintaining a secure and resilient supply chain,' he said. 'More insight into the grid's component supply chains also will strengthen national security.' Having electrical manufacturers work with the Department of Energy's supply chain assessment will also help 'identify where potential issues related to 'foreign entities of concern' and other emerging issues might have national security concerns,' Pederson said. The bill calls for the supply chain assessment to include 'the effects of any reliance of the United States on any foreign entity of concern' related to electrical components and 'the exploration, development, or production of critical materials necessary for manufacturing such components.' 'America does not currently have the supply chain we require for true grid security,' Danielle Russo, executive director of the Center for Grid Security for SAFE, an energy and transportation security nonprofit, said in a statement. Analysis and recommendations from DOE "will be valuable in directing public policy toward strategies to secure our grid component supply chains.' Minerals are critical energy inputs and are intensive to process, noted Abigail Hunter, executive director of SAFE's Center for Critical Mineral Strategy. Latta's bill 'will unearth supply chain vulnerabilities affecting our bulk power system and midstream challenges to process those minerals at home,' Hunter said. 'Simultaneously securing inputs and infrastructure is the foundation for energy security and long-term industrial strength.' Recommended Reading Transformer, breaker backlogs persist, despite reshoring progress
