Federal regulators on Monday Sweeping changes were approved to how America’s power grid is planned and financed, a move that advocates hope could spur thousands of miles of new high-voltage power lines and make adding wind and solar power more affordable. should be easier.
The new rule from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees the transmission of electricity between states, is the most significant effort in years to upgrade and expand the country’s creaking power grid. Experts have warned that not nearly enough high-voltage power lines are being built today, putting the country at greater risk of power outages due to extreme weather, while also making it difficult to switch to renewable energy sources and cope with growing electricity demand. increase becomes more difficult.
The commission said a big reason for the slow pace of grid expansion is that operators rarely plan long-term.
of the country three main grids overseen by a group of utilities and regional grid operators, primarily focused on ensuring electricity reliability for homes and businesses. When it comes to building new transmission lines, grid operators tend to be reactive, reacting after a wind farm developer requests connection to the existing network or when a problem is discovered. about reliability.
The new federal regulationsimplemented over two years, requiring grid operators across the country to determine demand over the next 20 years, taking into account factors such as changes in the energy mix, the growing number of households need wind and solar energy as well as the risks of extreme weather.
Grid planners will have to evaluate the benefits of new transmission lines, such as whether they reduce electricity costs or reduce the risk of outages, and develop methods to spread the costs of those lines between customers and businesses.
“We have to plan for our national grid for the long term,” said Willie Phillips, a Democrat who chairs the energy committee. “Our country’s aging electric grid is being tested in ways we have never seen before. Without significant action now, we will not be able to stay afloat in the face of growing demand, extreme weather and new technologies.”
The commission passed the rule by a 2-1 vote, with two Democratic commissioners in favor and the lone Republican, Mark Christie, opposed. Mr. Christie said the rule would allow states that want more renewable energy to unfairly shift the costs of needed grid upgrades to their neighbors.
“This rule completely fails to protect consumers,” Mr. Christie said. He said it “aims to facilitate the massive transfer of wealth from consumers to for-profit, special interests, especially wind and solar developers ”.
It could take years for the rule to take effect, and the commission could face legal challenges from states concerned about higher costs.
Nationwide, energy companies have proposed more than 11,000 wind, solar and battery projects, but many are in limbo because there isn’t enough capacity on the grid to accommodate them. Furthermore, individual developers must now pay for grid upgrades to accommodate their projects in a slow and piecemeal process.
Some critics say that’s like asking a trucking company to pay for an extra lane on the highway that all motorists eventually use. A better approach, they say, would be to plan ahead for widespread upgrades with costs shared by many energy suppliers and users.
But the question of who should pay for grid expansion has sparked fierce debate.
Officials in states less enthusiastic about wind and solar energy, such as Kentucky or West Virginia, say they could be forced to pay for billions of dollars worth of new transmission lines to help States like New Jersey or Illinois realize their renewable energy ambitions.
To allay those concerns, the commission issued guidelines on how to apportion the costs of new transmission projects. Before planning any lines, utilities and grid operators must work with states to develop a formula to allocate costs to customers based on the potential benefits from the new line.
There is some precedent for this. The grid that handles electricity in 15 Midwestern states, known as MISO, recently approved $10.3 billion in new power line construction, in part because many states have ambitious renewable energy goals that require must convey more. MISO estimates the lines will generate total benefits of up to 69 billion USD, including lower fuel costs and fewer power outages. The grid operator can then split the costs even among states that do not have renewable energy policies but will share the rewards.
“It’s extremely difficult and not everyone gets what they want, but everyone We all agreed that we would sit in a room and figure out how to solve this problem.” a renewable energy trade group
Mr. Christie said the final rule does not give states enough power to object to how costs are shared. But Alison Clements, the other Democrat on the committee, said giving each state veto power was “a recipe for inaction.”
The rule also requires utilities and grid operators to consider new technologies that may have higher initial costs but can help the grid operate more efficiently and provide long-term benefits. , such as advanced conductors. Can carry twice the current like traditional lines.
Environmental groups and renewable energy companies praised the new regulations.
“This is a monumental day in the fight against Climate Change.
Over the past year, Mr. Schumer and other Democrats have warned that efforts to combat climate change could fail if the nation’s power grid is not overhauled. Coal and gas-burning power plants are a major source of pollution that is dangerously warming the planet. While the Disinflation Reduction Act of 2022 poured hundreds of billions of dollars into cleaner alternatives like wind and solar power, one recent analysis found that half of that law’s climate benefits could be lost if the United States cannot build new transmission systems at a faster rate.
It remains to be seen how effective the new rule will be as that will depend on how grid operators implement it. A 2011 effort by the commission aimed at encouraging transmission planning most falteredThat’s partly because many utilities oppose new long-distance lines that could undermine their monopolies, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. Given the decentralized nature of the nation’s electric grid, federal regulators can only do so much to force operators to comply.
“I suspect this regulation will be helpful in parts of the country where there has been more momentum in transmission development” such as the Northeast, Mr. Peskoe said. “But in places where large utilities are more resistant to transmission, I don’t know if FERC can do that.”
New rules affect grid planning in 12 large regions across the country, but would not require transmission planning to connect those disparate areas together, which some experts say is an even greater need. The rule also would not affect the main power grid in Texas, which is insulated from federal regulations because it does not cross state lines.
The regulation also fails to address the logistical and political challenges of building new long-distance power lines. It can take a decade or more for developers to navigate a project through multiple jurisdictions, receive permits from various federal and state agencies, and resolve litigation lawsuits. point of deterioration or damage to the ecosystem.
Biden administration just completed a program to cut federal permitting times for several major transmission lines in half. But accelerating progress further may require action from Congress, where lawmakers have struggled to agree on new transmission policies.
However, in a separate rule on Monday, the federal energy commission did: List some situations in that it could override state opposition to a small set of new power lines.
The issue being discussed is the set of 10 “electricity transmission corridors for national interests” that the Ministry of Energy provisionally determined across the country – places where the new routes will be especially beneficial. If state regulators block or delay a project in those corridors, the federal commission could step in to approve it.
But some experts question how often this happens, given that the commission has historically prioritized working with states.
