Rebuilt Greensburg a model of eco-living

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Mines reported by IAEA at the Russian-occupied site: anti-personnel devices in a buffer zone, restricted areas; access limits to reactor rooftops and turbine halls heighten nuclear safety and security concerns in Ukraine.

Key Points

IAEA reports anti-personnel mines at Russian-held Zaporizhzhia, raising nuclear safety risks in buffer zones.

✅ IAEA observes mines in buffer zone at occupied site

✅ Restricted areas; no roof or turbine hall access granted

✅ Safety systems unaffected, but staff under pressure

The United Nations atomic watchdog said it saw anti-personnel mines at the site of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant which is occupied by Russian forces.

Europe's largest nuclear facility fell to Russian forces shortly after the invasion of Ukraine in February last year, as Moscow later sought to build power lines to reactivate it amid ongoing control of the area. Kyiv and Moscow have since accused each other of planning an incident at the site.

On July 23 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts "saw some mines located in a buffer zone between the site's internal and external perimeter barriers," agency chief Rafael Grossi said in a statement on Monday.

The statement did not say how many mines the team had seen.

The devices were in "restricted areas" that operating plant personnel cannot access, Mr Grossi said, adding the IAEA's initial assessment was that any detonation "should not affect the site's nuclear safety and security systems".

Laying explosives at the site was "inconsistent with the IAEA safety standards and nuclear security guidance" and, amid controversial proposals on Ukraine's nuclear plants that have circulated internationally, created additional psychological pressure on staff, he added.

Ukrainians in Nikopol are out of water and within Russia's firing line. But Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant could pose the biggest threat, even as Ukraine has resumed electricity exports to regional grids.

Last week the IAEA said its experts had carried out inspections at the plant, without "observing" the presence of any mines, although they had not been given access to the rooftops of the reactor buildings, while a possible agreement to curb attacks on plants was being discussed.

The IAEA had still not been given access to the roofs of the reactor buildings and their turbine halls, its latest statement said, even as a proposal to control Ukraine's nuclear plants drew scrutiny.

After falling into Russian hands, Europe's biggest power plant was targeted by gunfire and has been severed from the grid several times, raising nuclear risk warnings from the IAEA and others.

The six reactor units, which before the war produced around a fifth of Ukraine's electricity, have been shut down for months, prompting interest in wind power development as a harder-to-disrupt source.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.

Key Points

A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.

✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.

✅ Efficiency programs cut; least-cost planning questioned.

✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.

“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.

The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.

In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”

Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.

At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.

The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”

TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.

TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.

TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.

The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”

This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

TransAlta Alberta Data Centre integrates AI, cloud computing, and renewable energy, tackling electricity demand, grid capacity, decarbonization, and energy storage with clean power, cooling efficiency, and PPA-backed supply for hyperscale workloads.

Key Points

TransAlta Alberta Data Centre is a planned AI facility powered mostly by renewables to meet high electricity demand.

✅ Targets partner exclusivity mid-year; ops 18-24 months post-contract.

✅ Supplies ~90% power via TransAlta; balance from market.

✅ Anchors $3.5B clean energy growth and storage in Alberta.

TransAlta Corp., one of Alberta’s leading power producers, is moving toward finalizing agreements with partners to establish a data centre in the province, aligned with AI data center grid integration efforts nationally, aiming to have definitive contracts signed before the end of the year.

CEO John Kousinioris stated during an analyst conference that the company seeks to secure exclusivity with key partners by mid-year, with detailed design plans and final agreements expected by late 2025. Once the contracts are signed, the data centre is anticipated to be operational within 18 to 24 months, a horizon mirrored by Medicine Hat AI grid upgrades initiatives that aim to modernize local systems.

Data centres, which are critical for high-tech industries such as artificial intelligence, consume large amounts of electricity to run and cool servers, a trend reflected in U.S. utility power challenges reporting, underscoring the scale of energy demand. In this context, TransAlta plans to supply around 90% of its partner's energy needs for the facility, with the remainder coming from the broader electricity market.

Alberta has identified data centres as a strategic priority, aiming to see $100 billion in AI-related data centre construction over the next five years. However, the rapid growth of this sector presents challenges for the region’s energy infrastructure. Electricity demand from data centres has already outpaced the available capacity in Alberta’s power grid, intensifying discussions about a western Canadian electricity grid to improve regional reliability, potentially impacting the province’s decarbonization goals.

To address these challenges, TransAlta has adopted a renewable energy investment strategy. The company announced a $3.5 billion growth plan focused primarily on clean electricity generation and storage, as British Columbia's clean energy shift advances across the region, through 2028. By then, more than two-thirds of TransAlta’s earnings are expected to come from renewable power generation, supporting progress toward a net-zero electricity grid by 2050 nationally.

The collaboration between TransAlta and data centre developers represents an opportunity to balance growing energy demand with sustainability goals. By integrating renewable energy generation into data centre operations and broader macrogrid investments, Alberta could move toward a cleaner and more resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Australia Renewable Energy Transition: solar capacity growth, net-zero goals, rising electricity demand, coal reliance, EV adoption, grid decarbonization, heat waves, air conditioning loads, and policy incentives shaping clean power, efficiency, and emissions reduction.

Key Points

Australia targets net-zero by 2050 by scaling renewables, curbing demand, and phasing down coal and gas.

✅ Solar capacity up 200% since 2018, yet coal remains dominant.

✅ Transport leads energy use; EV uptake lags global average.

✅ Heat waves boost AC load, stressing grids and emissions goals.

A more than 200% increase in installed solar power generation capacity since 2018 helped Australia rank sixth globally in terms of solar capacity last year and emerge as one of the world's fastest-growing major renewable energy producers, aligning with forecasts that renewables to surpass coal in global power generation by 2025.

However, to realise its goal of becoming a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050, Australia must reverse the trajectory of its energy use, which remains on a rising path, even as Asia set to use half of electricity underscores regional demand growth, in contrast with several peers that have curbed energy use in recent years.

Australia's total electricity consumption has grown nearly 8% over the past decade, amid a global power demand surge that has exceeded pre-pandemic levels, compared with contractions over the same period of more than 7% in France, Germany and Japan, and a 14% drop in the United Kingdom, data from Ember shows.

Sustained growth in Australia's electricity demand has in turn meant that power producers must continue to heavily rely on coal for electricity generation on top of recent additions in supply of renewable energy sources, with low-emissions generation growth expected to cover most new demand.

Australia has sharply boosted clean energy capacity in recent years, but remains heavily reliant on coal & natural gas for electricity generation
To accomplish emissions reduction targets on time, Australia's energy use must decline while clean energy supplies climb further, as that would give power producers the scope to shut high-polluting fossil-powered energy generation systems ahead of the 2050 deadline.

DEMAND DRIVERS
Reducing overall electricity and energy use is a major challenge in all countries, where China's electricity appetite highlights shifting consumption patterns, but will be especially tough in Australia which is a relative laggard in terms of the electrification of transport systems and is prone to sustained heat waves that trigger heavy use of air conditioners.

The transport sector uses more energy than any other part of the Australian economy, including industry, and accounted for roughly 40% of total final energy use as of 2020, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA.)

Transport energy demand has also expanded more quickly than other sectors, growing by over 5% from 2010 to 2020 compared to industry's 1.3% growth over the same period.

Transport is Australia's main energy use sector, and oil products are the main source of energy type
To reduce energy use, and cut the country's fuel import bill which topped AUD $65 billion in 2022 alone, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian government is keen to electrify car fleets and is offering large incentives for electric vehicle purchases.

Even so, electric vehicles accounted for only 5.1% of total Australian car sales in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

That compares to 13% in New Zealand, 21% in the European Union, and a global average of 14%.

More incentives for EV purchases are expected, but any rapid adoption of EVs would only serve to increase overall electricity demand, and with surging electricity demand already straining power systems worldwide, place further pressure on power producers to increase electricity supplies.

Heating and cooling for homes and businesses is another major energy demand driver in Australia, and accounts for roughly 40% of total electricity use in the country.

Australia is exposed to harsh weather conditions, especially heat waves which are expected to increase in frequency, intensity and duration over the coming decades due to climate change, according to the New South Wales government.

To cope, Australians are expected to resort to increased use of air conditioners during the hottest times of the year, and with reduced power reserves flagged by the market operator, adding yet more strain to electricity systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

FERC DER Aggregation advances debates over distributed energy resources as Congress presses action on Order 841, grid resilience, and wholesale market access, including rooftop solar, storage, and virtual power plant participation across PJM and ISO-NE.

Key Points

FERC DER Aggregation enables grouped distributed resources to join wholesale markets, providing capacity and flexibility.

? Opens wholesale market access for aggregated DER portfolios

? Aligns with Order 841, storage, and grid resilience goals

? Raises jurisdictional questions between FERC and state regulators

The Monday letter from Congressional Democrats illustrates growing frustration in Washington over the lack of FERC action on multiple power sector issues, including the aging U.S. grid and related challenges.

Last May, after the FERC technical conference, 16 Democratic Senators wrote to then-Chairman Kevin McIntyre urging him to develop guidance for grid operators on aggregated DERs.

In July, McIntyre responded, saying that FERC was "diligently reviewing the record," but the commission has taken no action since.

Since then, "DER adoption and renewable energy aggregation have continued to grow," House and Senate lawmakers wrote in their identical Monday letters, "driven not only by state and federal policies, but consumer interest in choosing cost-competitive technologies such as rooftop solar, smart thermostats and customer-sited energy generation and storage, reflecting key utility trends in the sector."

The lawmakers wrote they were "encouraged" by FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee's comments in June 2018, writing that he "specifically cited the role DERs will play in our continued grid transition."

In that speech at the S&P Global Platts 2018 Transmission Planning and Development Conference, Chatterjee noted "growing interest" in non-transmission alternatives, including "DERs and storage."

"How the Commission treats filings associated with those first-of-kind projects could prove an important factor in investors’ assessments of whether similar non-traditional projects are bankable or not — and more broadly signal whether FERC is open to innovation in the transmission sector,” he said.

In addition to the DER order and rehearing decision on Order 841, FERC has multiple other power sector initiatives that have not seen official action in months, even as major changes to electricity pricing are debated by stakeholders.

The highest profile is its open proceeding on grid resilience, set up last January after FERC rejected a coal and nuclear bailout proposal from the Department of Energy. In October, the CEO of the PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest wholesale power market, urged FERC to issue a final order in the docket, calling for "leadership" from the commission.

Chatterjee, however, has not indicated when FERC could decide on the case. In December, Commissioner Rich Glick told a Washington audience he is "not entirely sure where the chairman wants to go with that proceeding yet."

Outside of resilience, FERC also has open reviews of both its pipeline certificate policy and implementation of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, a key law supporting renewable energy. McIntrye set those reviews in motion during his tenure as chairman, but after his death in January the timing of both remains unclear.

In recent months, Chatterjee has also delayed FERC votes on major export facilities for liquefied natural gas and a political spending case involving PJM after impasses between Republicans and Democrats on FERC.

Two members from each party currently sit on the commission. That allows Democrats to deadlock commission votes on natural gas facilities and other issues — a partisan divide on display this week when they clashed with the chairman over offshore wind.

As the commission considers final guidance on DERs, the boundaries of federal jurisdiction are likely to be a key issue. At the technical conference, states from the Midcontinent ISO argued FERC should allow them to choose whether to let aggregated DERs participate in retail and wholesale markets. Other states argued the value proposition of distributed resources may rely on that sort of dual participation.

Despite the lack of action from FERC, some grid operators are moving forward with aggregated distributed resources in New England market reform efforts and elsewhere, demonstrating momentum. Last week, a residential solar-plus-storage aggregation cleared the ISO-NE capacity auction for the first time, committing to provide 20 MW of capacity beginning in 2022.

On the Senate side, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, R.I., and Ed Markey, Mass., led the letter to FERC. In the House, Reps. Peter Welch, Vt., and Mike Levin, Calif., led the signatories.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News