1 / 11

Presentation to the Western Clean Energy Advocates May 13, 2011

Presentation to the Western Clean Energy Advocates May 13, 2011. WHO WE ARE

brandice
Download Presentation

Presentation to the Western Clean Energy Advocates May 13, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to the Western Clean Energy Advocates May 13, 2011

  2. WHO WE ARE • The Energy Future Coalition (EFC) is a broad-based, non-partisan alliance that seeks to bridge the differences among business, labor, and environmental groups and identify energy policy options with broad political support. • The National Clean Energy Transmission Initiative (NCETI) supports policies that unlock renewable energy resources, develop smart grid technologies, and enable energy efficiency. • Partnership • A platform for national action: EFC leverages its convening power and relationships to make meaningful change on a national level; • Entrepreneurial thinking: The Coalition has successfully helped change the dialogue on energy, creating new possibilities for collaboration; and • Creative partnerships: Working across interest groups, the Coalition creates strong partnerships targeted at effective outcomes.

  3. OUR GOALS • Similar to the Western Clean Energy Advocates, the Energy Future Coalition is working to make our nation’s energy grid bigger, smarter, and better integrated. • Bigger: Bolster our transmission system to bring renewable energy resources—like wind in the Great Plains and solar in the desert Southwest—to the population centers that need them. • Smarter: Broadly deploy "smart grid" technologies to make the grid more reliable, resilient, and secure, and enable much greater energy efficiency for consumers and businesses. • Better Integrated: Elevate planning, siting, and cost-allocation processes from the state and local level to a much larger regional level that includes input from all stakeholders. 

  4. OUR APPROACH • With input from our Smart Grid Working Group, EFC is drafting a plan to develop a National Clean Energy Smart Grid. We believe that the U.S. must: • Develop New Regional Transmission Plans to Bring Renewable Power to Market. Congress should enable the grid to maximize the development of domestic renewable energy by linking resources to population centers.  Congress should establish a new process within the two multi-state power systems that cover the entire country (except Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii) to plan, site, and recover the costs for transmission.  • Create New Incentives for Investments in Smart Grid Technologies. Congress should increase funding for demonstration projects and provide tax breaks for smart grid investments. • Make Grid Security a Priority. Congress should ensure that new grid investments and technologies make our power system safer and more secure. A smart grid is more adaptive and self-healing and can better manage electricity flows, which helps safeguard our electric power system from attacks and natural disasters.   

  5. WHO IS STANDING IN THE WAY? • The Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy (CFTP)… • …A group of vertically integrated utilities, currently operating in closed markets. • Members include CMS Energy Corporation, Consolidated Edison, Inc., DTE Energy Company, Progress Energy, Inc., Public Service Enterprise Group, SCANA Corporation, Southern Company, and The United Illuminating Company. • The group opposes the allocation of transmission expansion costs to electric consumers unless there are measurable economic or reliability benefits for those consumers. • CFTP listed the following priorities in their response to FERC’s June 17, 2010 NOPR on cost allocation: • The Commission should ensure that state regulatory prerogatives are not pre-empted. Local needs should be satisfied based on the state legislative and state regulatory policy choices, not those made on their behalf during regional planning processes. • The Commission should not require nor allow regional planning processes to consider non-mandated public policy goals. • Only economic and reliability benefits that can reasonably be projected in planning and other modeling studies should be considered in determining cost allocation. Generalized “social” benefits or speculative benefits are not rational or sufficient for cost allocation.

  6. “COALITION FOR FAIR TRANMISSION POLICY” RHETORIC VS. REALITY Fair guidelines on cost allocation will lower costs for consumers, open up energy markets to competition, and bring more renewable power online. Rhetoric: Building more transmission will increase electric bills for consumers. Reality: New investment in transmission will reduce energy costs for millions, and will help control energy costs for everyone. Rhetoric: Consumers will pay for transmission lines even when they don’t benefit . Reality: Under FERC’s proposed rule, only those who benefit from new transmission lines will pay for them. Rhetoric: The current system works. Reality: Flawed planning and unworkable cost allocation systems are failing for consumers, renewable energy, and national security.

  7. REGULATORY REFORM: SOME PROGRESS • Midwestern Independent System Operator (MISO) • Filed cost allocation proposal with FERC . • Creates new category of projects - multi value projects (MVPs) – and provides for regional allocation of these projects. • MVPs have a regional impact and are part of a regional plan, also intended to facilitate state and federal legislative, regulatory and policy mandates. • FERC NOPR • Proposes to change the way transmission is planned, built and paid for • Superior to proposals put forth by Senate or House to address cost sharing and planning • No date-certain for final rule, expected in Spring 2011 • Southwest Power Pool (SPP) • Implemented new cost allocation methodology and long-term planning process • Highway / Byway cost allocation provides for regional cost allocation for projects 300kV+ • Integrated Transmission Planning (ITP) process is a comprehensive, longer-term planning process • Both were unanimously approved by FERC

  8. ROADBLOCK: • HOW CFTP AND • CORKER-WYDEN • WOULD ENDANGER OUR ENERGY FUTURE • Protects power company profits, holds customers captive • Blocks state and regional efforts to open markets, develop resources and create jobs • Places special interests over national security and environmental protection • Creates market chaos by exposing approved business agreements to legal challenges • CFTP’s ultimate goal is to curb FERC’s rulemaking authority on transmission projects, specifically surrounding the critical element of cost allocation. • CFTP’s opposition activities have the potential to bring regional planning and cost allocation to a screeching halt. CANDIDATE MVP PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS June 2011

  9. MICHIGAN: WHERE “THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD” • MISO’s Multi-Value Project (MVP) Cost-Allocation Plan • Developed over two years, this cost sharing plan accounts for the broad benefits of transmission and was designed to ensure consumers had a reliable electricity supply and efficient distribution network. • FERC’s approval of this formula offers customers protection from unjustifiable transmission charges. The process requires projects to be evaluated in an open, transparent stakeholder planning process. • 13 states including Michigan agreed to this plan, following a vetting process that took almost two years. • Uproar over Michigan’s “Thumb Loop” Project • 1st HV transmission project paid for using MISO MVP cost allocation methodology • Despite initial buy in, political and business opposition has sprung up – Gov. Snyder, Rep. Amanda Price’s Resolution, MI Senate Committee on Energy and Technology, MPSC • The Wall Street Journal and The Detroit News editorial pages have strongly supported the opposition’s position.

  10. MAKING THE CASE FOR TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT • Employment and Economic Benefits of Transmission Infrastructure Investment in the U.S. and Canada • Working Group for Investment in Reliable and Economic Electric Systems (WIRES) and • The Brattle Group • Study Highlights: • A new analysis commissioned by WIRES shows that annual investment in new electric transmission facilities could soon reach $12-$16 billion in the United States, resulting in $30-$40 billion in annual economic activity. • Economic growth of this kind would support 150,000-200,000 new full-time jobs in the U.S. in each of the next 20 years. • Study predicts that investment in needed transmission will annually support 130,000-250,000 full-time U.S. jobs in the emerging renewable energy industry to which transmission capacity is so critical. • Brattle Group analysis suggests that total U.S. transmission investment could reach $240 billion to $320 billion (in 2011 U.S. dollars) between 2010 and 2030.

  11. EFC CONTACTS • John Jimison • jjimison@energyfuturecoalition.org • Bill White • bill@dgardiner.com • Patrick Hughes • phughes@energyfuturecoalition.org THANK YOU

More Related