This op-ed was originally published by Bloomberg Law. Reproduced with permission. Published March 17, 2022. Copyright 2022 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 800-372-1033. For further use, please visit http://www.bna.com/copyright-permission-request/
In the wake of recent high-profile electric power failures, numerous policymakers and politicians have asserted an inherent tension between the aims of clean energy and grid reliability. One Texas regulator declared that the best response to the hundreds of deaths caused by last year’s blackouts was for the state never to build another wind turbine again—even though the failure to weatherize natural gas infrastructure has been diagnosed as the blackouts’ primary cause.
At the same time, large utilities such as Duke Energy have proposed major new investments in natural gas generation, citing the need for reliability.
These calls for new fossil fuel investments in the name of reliability are a dangerous distortion of reality. Numerous studies have confirmed the technical feasibility of rapidly transforming the grid to run predominantly on renewable energy at penetration levels of 80% or 90%. Moreover, it should be obvious by now—in a year when one in three Americans has personally experienced the effects of a natural disaster—that continuing to run the grid on fossil fuels is its own recipe for disaster.
In fact, much of the perceived tension between clean energy and reliability is a failure not of infrastructure, but of law and governance. The U.S. system for regulating electricity divides responsibility among too many players, assigns too many overlapping or competing tasks, and creates too many distorted incentives.
Across numerous issues from reliability regulation, to electricity markets, to transmission planning and financing, it is a siloed legal system in need of greater integration and coordination.
Weatherization
Our siloed system prevents us from achieving the dual imperatives of reliability and clean energy. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), a not-for-profit composed largely of individuals from the energy industry, has primary responsibility for drafting reliability standards for the industry. This structure, while incorporating important expertise, creates a natural tendency toward rules that do not create major expenses for industry members.
Thus, although NERC and numerous other agencies have amassed evidence for decades of the importance of weatherization for preventing blackouts and saving lives, the agency until 2021 continued to make weatherization recommended, rather than required, for all plants.
Nor has NERC sufficiently considered the potential reliability gains of investment in clean microgrids or other emerging technologies, as compared to measures that shore up fossil-fuel infrastructure.
Transmission and Electricity Markets
Meanwhile, it seems like transmission grid expansion should be a win-win for utilities and clean energy. What the country needs most is long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines, capable of carrying power from wind- and solar-rich regions to population centers.
It has been maddeningly difficult to get these lines built, again because of governance silos: Utilities prefer to finance smaller lines exclusively in their own territories; states maintain control over transmission line siting and have used that power to block lines that provide regional benefits; and regional grid operators have erected methodological and financial obstacles to cross-regional cooperation that might force them to pay for upgrades in other regions.
Similar tensions have pervaded regional electricity markets. In several markets, generators have successfully pushed to amend participation rules to exclude renewable energy resources and emerging resources like energy efficiency, storage, and demand response. That might be rational from a self-preservation viewpoint, since new entrants erode incumbent profits.
From the viewpoint of states trying to achieve clean energy goals, however, or from climate science itself, it is irrational and inefficient. Indeed, several states have threatened to pull their utilities out of regional markets that are undermining state public policy goals.
Breaking Down the Silos
To its credit, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has taken steps to break down these silos. In the past year, the agency has begun to reform electricity market rules that punish renewables and convened a joint federal-state task force on electric transmission.
Congress also seems motivated to improve electricity governance: in addition to providing $65 billion in grid-related funding in the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress also enhanced FERC’s authority to override state vetoes of important national transmission lines and created new authority for the Department of Energy to support such lines.
However, both more legal muscle and more creativity are necessary. A focus on reforms that would break down governance silos to ensure a more collaborative effort toward achieving these twin aims also is needed.
For transmission, a national planning authority is an obvious answer to the parochialism plaguing both utilities and states.
For regional electricity markets, FERC needs to ensure that electricity market design maximizes competition among all resources, while accommodating states’ clean energy goals.
For reliability, we need reforms that force NERC to embrace both the reliability challenges and opportunities presented by renewable energy investments.
Across all of these areas, reformers must keep in mind that rethinking the structure of who has power to make rules—and not just the substance of rules themselves—will be critical to an enduring commitment to grid transformation.
We all want our lights to stay on through the mounting range of disasters that climate change is already producing. But to let reliability concerns be used as a smokescreen for self-motivated opposition to clean energy is misguided. A clean, reliable, affordable grid is absolutely possible—as soon as we reform our governing institutions to make them deliver it for us.
Showing 2,825 results
Alexandra Klass, Hannah Wiseman | March 21, 2022
The U.S. system for regulating electricity divides responsibility among too many players, assigns too many overlapping or competing tasks, and creates too many distorted incentives, a group of law professors says. They propose reforms that would break down governance silos to ensure greater collaboration in the clean energy transition.
Catalina Gonzalez | March 16, 2022
State officials in California are leading an extensive multisector planning effort to develop the 2022 Scoping Plan, the third update to California’s climate mitigation strategy. The new plan will outline a pathway for statewide action toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions no later than 2045.
Daniel Farber | March 15, 2022
On March 11, there were two seismic shocks in the world of gas pipeline regulation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has spent years resisting pressure to change the way it licenses new gas pipelines. The whole point of a natural gas pipeline is to deliver the gas to users who will burn it, thereby releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. FERC has steadfastly refused to take those emissions into account. The D.C. Circuit held that position illegal in an opinion released last Friday. That same day, by coincidence, FERC published guidelines in the Federal Register explaining how it proposed to consider those emissions.
Sidney A. Shapiro | March 14, 2022
When it comes to historically marginalized groups, an “out of sight and out of mind” approach has too often infected agency policymaking. Agencies have responded with outreach to marginalized communities, but regulatory policymaking is hardly inclusive. Last January, President Biden required the government to increase engagement “with community-based organizations and civil rights organizations,” and the Administrative Conference of the United States responded with a multiday forum on underserved communities and the regulatory process. Addressing the lack of participation by marginalized communities in regulatory decision-making is crucial, but there is another fundamental issue. The input of marginalized communities will not matter if agencies ignore or devalue it because these insights are not expressed using the standard narratives of policymaking.
Allison Stevens | March 9, 2022
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, recently nominated to succeed retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, has received the endorsement of over 200 Black law deans and professors.
David Driesen | March 8, 2022
Arguments and judicial reasoning in administrative law cases usually focus on the case at hand. Indeed, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) commands that narrow focus. The APA does not give the courts any role in shaping the laws governing administrative agencies, for that is what Congress does. Instead, it gives the courts a modest, albeit difficult responsibility: They may determine whether a particular agency action is arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. Therefore, parties challenging an agency rule they disapprove of generally argue that the agency has violated some restraint stated in the statute or exercised its discretion in an arbitrary way. But in the U.S. Supreme Court case heard last week about the scope of EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (West Virginia v. EPA), coal companies relied heavily on a "parade of horribles" argument — a listing of bad things that might happen in future cases if the Court upheld EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the case before the Court.
Karen Sokol | March 4, 2022
Last fall, on the same day that the parties to the Paris Agreement gathered in Glasgow for their first day of their annual international climate meeting, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would review an appellate court decision about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases from fossil fuel power plants under the Clean Air Act. Fast forward half a year: On February 28, the day that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change issued its sobering report on climate adaptation and harms to human and planetary well-being, the court heard oral arguments in the case -- West Virginia v. EPA. Once again, it was a split-screen reality.
Ian Campbell | March 3, 2022
Employers prefer to deal with their workers one on one. But workers have shown throughout history they will not abide by this unfair practice. They organize, they work together, and, when their employers refuse to deal with them all at once, they strike. Workers engaged in, and prospered from, collective action long before passage of the National Labor Relations Act. The law merely sought to regulate this action for the public good, to replace strike with negotiation, conflict with cooperation. History is now repeating itself; labor strife is increasing, thanks in part to the rise of legal contracts that force workers to settle disputes in a rigged system of arbitration rather than an impartial court of law.
Allison Stevens | March 2, 2022
Imagine you're in the market for a new furnace. You decide to buy a more fuel-efficient system -- even though the price tag is higher -- because it will lower your monthly heating bills. Another selling point: The fuel-efficient furnace emits less carbon into the atmosphere -- a benefit you can't quite quantify but that you value nonetheless for its small salubrious effect on the planet. Policymakers go through a similar -- though much more complex -- process when implementing laws. But an obscure federal mandate known as cost-benefit analysis renders them unable to fully account for costs and benefits that are difficult to measure in dollars and cents, like the large-scale value to society of federal rules that protect public and environmental health. Despite its name, a true analysis of a rule's full benefits is impossible.