Developing new transmission key to building a stronger grid to deliver renewables
New and advanced transmission infrastructure is central to an expansion of renewable generation, experts said during a panel discussion on how to build the energy grid of tomorrow, part of the Edison Electric Institute’s “The Road to Net Zero” conference being held this week.
The session featured Linda Apsey, president and CEO of ITC Holdings, the largest independent electricity transmission company in the United States, and Rob Gramlich, founder and president of Grid Strategies LLC. The session was moderated by Phil Moeller, executive vice president of the Business Operations Group and Regulatory Affairs at EEI.
Apsey discussed transmission’s critical role with renewables, noting “transmission is to renewables what roads are to cars.” Today, ITC delivers about 7,000 megawatts of renewables, which Apsey said is just a small fraction of future demand. To provide that service she cited data from the Brattle Group that the U.S. will need $15 billion to $40 billion/year for grid investments related to renewables.
Apsey cited the importance of a “transmission first” approach in electricity planning. Historically, she said that generation was the higher priority. A change would be important for renewables, she said, and it “would make the whole grid more resilient.”
Considering long lead times for transmission infrastructure, projects could start earlier if they were thought-out first, part of an overall system perspective.
Gramlich saw opportunity in the fact that people are starting to realize how critical transmission development is, particularly regarding transitioning to renewables. He said renewable power isn’t dependable in the same way that baseload fossil and nuclear are dependable. With renewables, power moves back and forth across the grid more frequently. In addition, the grid will need to accommodate energy from many different sources, such as storage, gas, nuclear and “distributed resources at utility scale.” Physically, transmission will need to cover an expanded space in order to access and move power around and across regions. “With sufficient transmission,” he said, “you can make the thing work.”
He suggested that planners need to think big. Larger-scale developments are less expensive in the long run. Replacements, he said, “should be planned for the future, 10-20 years out, not next year.” He said current infrastructure needs to be used to its fullest. But the scale-up required for renewables doesn’t yet have the necessary broad public backing. Gramlich said the question is still open: “How do we get the social buy-in to do this?”
Moeller asked about policy: what’s been helpful for transmission development and what hasn’t?
Apsey cited as important the new alignment across the federal government on energy, including transmission developments. “There is a lot of momentum,” she said at the federal level and referenced related legislative efforts such as The Clean Future Act (H.R. 1512) and the Moving Forward Act (H.R. 2).
She made more specific reference to the MISO MVP process (Multi-Value Projects) that started in 2011, a collaborative effort to implement a consolidated, regional transmission plan. Central to the MVP effort was presenting, and approving, a set of transmission projects critical for portions of MISO’s territory. Apsey called this the kind of model that can clarify project benefits and, therefore, help with cost allocation, critical to funding. She noted, though, that even this pointed effort took 10 years before the listed projects were completed.
Phil Moeller noted that he was a FERC commissioner during the MVP process, and was something he voted on. He added that some of the projects are still being built. “It tells us a little bit of the time scale challenge to this,” Moeller said.
Apsey said FERC Order 1000 works against best practices for transmission development. FERC Order 1000, from 2011, reformed electric transmission planning and cost allocation requirements for public utility transmission providers. Apsey called it a “major setback to link cost allocation and competitively bid projects.”
She said the winter failures in Texas illustrated the consequences when competitive issues are given priority over all others. She summarized: “If we want to facilitate net zero carbon goals we have to eliminate the unnecessary burden of competitive bidding and get back to the fundamentals of how do we drive regional collaboration and planning and then how do we also solve cost allocation issues so that costs are being aligned with who is really benefitting.”
Moeller’s closing question asked for predictions about how this set of issues might look in one year.
Apsey expects progress as some projects begin to move into the approval process. But major policy issues will remain a struggle. She wondered about so many players and the pressing need for certainty and clarity and timeliness. “I’m optimistic because of all the focus on this,” she said. “It hasn’t happened before. This is challenging, but I’m hopeful.”
Gramlich, too, noted the importance and advantages from the broad public attention focused on transmission. He noted the willingness across federal agencies to facilitate renewable energy development. He is hoping to see some clean energy legislation, e.g., a carbon price. While he is confident that renewables will move forward during the next year, he added that it won’t be “at the pace we need.”
