Keywords

storage

(3)
Wind

(3)
IT

(2)
OT

(2)
PV

(2)
Solar

(2)
Abengoa Solar

(1)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(1)
APS

(1)
Bonneville Power Administration

(1)
BPA

(1)
Congress

(1)
Conservation

(1)
Crystalline silicon

(1)
DC

(1)
Department of Energy

(1)
EPRI

(1)
FERC

(1)
Galvin Electricity Initiative

(1)
Google

(1)

PUR Guide 2012 Fully Updated Version

Available NOW!

This comprehensive self-study certification course is designed to teach the novice or pro everything they need to understand and succeed in every phase of the public utilities business.

Order Now

Order 1000

The Old Drawing Board

Byline:

Michael T. Burr, Editor-in-Chief

Magazine Volume:

Fortnightly Magazine - November 2012

PUCs are concerned that a rapid shutdown of coal-fired plants will start a full-tilt dash to gas—similar to the one that caused bankruptcies among independent power producers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But this time around, ratepayers and not IPP investors will be stuck with the risk, if utilities rush to add all that new gas-fired capacity to rate base.

Category:

Frontlines

Author Bio:

Michael T. Burr is Fortnightly’s editor-in-chief. Email him at burr@pur.com

Category (Actual):

Rate Cases

Natural Gas

Strategy & Planning

Portfolio planning in the age of gas.

Read more about The Old Drawing Board

Federal Feud

Byline:

Bruce W. Radford and Michael T. Burr

Magazine Volume:

Fortnightly Magazine - November 2012

When Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays led an attack on the federal Springfield Armory in January 1787—the spark that ignited the federalist movement—he scarcely could’ve guessed that now, 225 years later, his spiritual descendants would still be fighting that very same battle.

Author Bio:

Bruce W. Radford (radford@pur.com) is Fortnightly’s publisher, and Michael T. Burr (burr@pur.com) is the editor-in-chief.

Category (Actual):

The States

The Feds

Environmental

The jurisdictional battle rages on, with FERC and EPA squaring off against the states.

Read more about Federal Feud

Bridging the Seams

Byline:

J.P. Pfeifenberger, J.W. Chang, and D. Hou

Magazine Volume:

Fortnightly Magazine - November 2012

With no single entity in charge, transmission planning has plagued projects that span multiple regions. A new framework offers a solution.

Image:

Figure 1 - Building Blocks for an Effective Interregional Planning and Cost Allocation Framework

Sidebar:

Sidebar Title:

Cost Allocation Principles: An Expanded List

Sidebar Body:

FERC Order 1000 listed six principles for cost allocation for interregional transmission planning. FERC’s list, however, could be expanded as follows:

1) Commensurate with Benefits: The cost of interregional transmission projects should be allocated to regions such that they are at least roughly commensurate with total benefits identified for each of the regions based on the benefits and metrics specified. Neither region should be allocated a share of the cost of an interregional project in which it receives no benefit.

2) Transparency: The application of cost allocation methodologies and identification of benefits and beneficiaries must be transparent.

3) Different project types: Different cost allocation methods may be applied to different types (e.g., reliability, economic, or public policy requirements) or different portions of transmission facilities.

4) Quantify and Monetize: The identified benefits should be quantified and, if possible, monetized based on all internally used and additionally specified interregional benefit metrics. Non-monetized and non-quantified benefits should also be recognized in the assessment of the overall reasonableness of proposed interregional project cost allocations.

5) Benefits at Least Equal to Avoided Costs: The regions should agree that the monetized reliability, load serving, public policy, or other benefit of an interregional project will be at least equal to the avoided cost of achieving the same benefit solely through cost-effective local or regional transmission upgrades.

6) Hurdle Rate: If benefit-to-cost ratios are used to assess the desirability of an interregional project to a region or the regions as a group, the benefit-to-cost threshold must not exceed 1.25.

7) Regional Net Benefits: Benefits to each region need to be sufficiently large so that each region’s share of benefits exceeds its share of costs consistent with region-internal benefit-cost criteria.

8) Internal Cost Recovery: The costs allocated to each region must be recoverable through the existing internal—local and regional—cost allocation process of each region.–JP, JWC, and DH

Author Bio:

Johannes Pfeifenberger and Judy Chang are principals of The Brattle Group. Delphine Hou is a former Brattle associate. This article is based on work undertaken for the Southwest Power Pool’s Regional State Committee and the associated report, Seams Cost Allocation: A Flexible Framework to Support Interregional Transmission Planning, April 2012, available at www.spp.org and www.brattle.com. The authors acknowledge sole responsibility for the content of this article.

Category (Actual):

Transmission

FERC

ETRM & Markets

Interregional planning under FERC Order 1000