The Biden administration is enhancing the nation's power grid by funding several storage, resilience and transmission projects.

The money will affect 18 states, including a massive data center in Northern Virginia.

Vince Barnett, senior vice president of strategic projects and lead generation for the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, said there is a lot of demand for power in the area. About 70% of the world's internet traffic flows through Loudoun County.

"We've got some of the best work talent across the nation," Barnett asserted. "We've got one of the strongest tech communities. We've got great utility partners, and on and on down the list. So all of that plays into this."

The region's tech sector is expected to keep growing. Amazon announced a $35 billion plan for new data centers in Northern Virginia last year. And the rise of remote work, streaming and artificial intelligence will require more computer servers, hardware and cooling fans. All that means data centers could need about 9% of the nation's electricity generation by 2030, about double what it consumes today.

The federal money comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and invests in tech such as battery storage and power lines. One of the goals is to make power infrastructure more resilient against extreme weather events. Barnett pointed out it will also expand work opportunities and tax coffers in Virginia.

"Last year, 2023, data centers directly provided roughly 12,000 operational jobs," Barnett noted. "That's the data center jobs themselves, and another 14,000 construction jobs. That represents about $2.8 billion in operational and construction pay and benefits."

This round of money follows a $3.5 billion funding announcement last fall for the same federal program. Virginia data center projects have faced local opposition about noise and environmental concerns.


get more stories like this via email

Nebraska ag producers and small businesses have until Sept. 30 to apply for the latest funding round of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Energy for America Program, part of the Farm Bill providing grants and guaranteed loans for renewable energy systems or energy efficiency improvements.

The Inflation Reduction Act included nearly $2 billion for projects under the program.

Christopher Faber, state energy coordinator for Nebraska USDA Rural Development, said the legislation also increased the percentage of funding allotted to grants from 25% to 50%.

"To be eligible for those projects, you either need to be an agricultural producer which would be involved in the day-to-day operations of the farm production and at least 50% of their income would come from that, or be a rural small business and be in a population area of less than 50,000," Faber explained.

Darr Grain in Cozad is building two wind turbines with the help of funding from the program which could save the company as much as $10,000 a year in electricity costs. Faber pointed out free grant-writing assistance is available for those wanting help with the application process.

Funding from the program allowed fourth-generation farmer and rancher Alan Koelling in Ord to purchase a new centrifuge for his family's sunflower oil company, Simply Sunflowers. Koelling said not only is the centrifuge more energy efficient, it was instrumental in growing their business.

"We hit a bottleneck, and the centrifuge was a big help in speeding up our process of cleaning our oil," Koelling explained. "As we can increase production, we can naturally increase our sales."

Koelling acknowledged it might have been years before they were able to purchase the centrifuge. The funding allowed them to increase production at a time when there was a void in the supply of sunflower oil. He added it also made it possible for them to employ several people part-time, which was one of their goals.

"Because it's really challenging in rural Nebraska to make ends meet with one income, and this gives families a chance for a supplemental income," Koelling noted. "Sometimes that's just enough to make life easier and better for a family."

Rural Energy for America Program funding is part of the Biden-Harris Justice 40 Initiative.


get more stories like this via email

New Mexico is taking a page from Colorado's Office of Just Transition to support communities affected by climate change.

The office aims to support workers and communities negatively affected as the country transitions away from traditional energy sources. At the University of New Mexico, the Just Transition Grand Challenge team is developing its own policies to ensure the transition to a low-carbon economy is equitable.

Gabe Pacyniak, professor of law at the University of New Mexico and co-convener of the Grand Challenge team, said opportunities must be created for all people; Hispanic, Native, and Black communities, as well as those living and working in the oil and gas fields.

"What can we do to help fossil fuel communities transition as those fossil fuel economies move away from that source of economic production," Pacyniak explained.

Leaning into the state's 2019 Energy Transition Act, Pacyniak said the team wants to help communities who might not have adequate staff or resources to seek money available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.

The university will host Grand Challenges Day Nov. 12 on the Albuquerque campus.

Pacyniak pointed out an obvious energy transition for a new, low-carbon economy in a sunny state like New Mexico is the installation of more solar. He noted he pays about $8 a month for energy after installing solar panels but knows it is not possible for everyone.

"Lots of people don't have their owns roofs. They live in multifamily housing," Pacyniak pointed out. "One aspect of a just transition is thinking about, 'How can we make sure that the same kind of benefit from this transition is available to people who live in multifamily housing?'"

He added New Mexico communities most affected by energy transition are concerned about the loss of property taxes, which pay for things like school districts, libraries and fire departments.


get more stories like this via email

By Kari Lydersen for Energy News Network.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Indiana ratepayers spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year for power from coal plants that are operating despite the availability of cheaper sources, including wind and solar.

The state is emblematic of a larger problem, as electricity market rules typically allow utility-owned power plants to essentially cut in line even when they are not the most economical option for customers.

A recent report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council examined how this phenomenon plays out in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) regional transmission organization specifically, building on previous research by RMI, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others — all of which show that uneconomic coal plant dispatch takes a huge toll on ratepayer wallets and public health. 

The problem happens primarily with vertically integrated utilities or municipal utilities and cooperatives, which can recoup costs of fuel and operations from ratepayers even if they are operating at a loss. In most of MISO territory, energy markets have not been restructured as open markets, making such cost recapture the norm. 

The NRDC study showed that Indiana ratepayers bore the second-highest burden in MISO, paying $338 million for uneconomic coal power from 2021-2023, just behind Louisiana’s $341 million. North Dakota ratepayers spent an extra $120 million, Wisconsin $69 million, and Minnesota $54 million, the study found. 

Indiana’s R.M. Schahfer plant, run by utility NIPSCO, cost ratepayers more than $100 million in such uneconomical dispatch from 2021-2023, the NRDC study found. 

In an ongoing rate case, Duke Energy is seeking to increase reliance on its Gibson and Cayuga plants in Indiana. These plants were responsible for $29 million and $7.6 million in uneconomic dispatch costs to consumers in 2023, according to RMI’s economic dispatch dashboard. 

“This has been a problem plaguing Indiana coal plants for many years, it’s costing our consumers in Indiana millions of dollars and it’s one of the factors driving rates higher and driving clean energy off the grid,” said Ben Inskeep, program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana. “It’s a tale of utilities making bad decisions as part of their profit motive and then utility regulators failing to hold them accountable as they’re supposed to. Certainly utilities should be operating their plants efficiently and economically, and when they fail to do so, they shouldn’t be getting cost recovery.” 

Duke spokesperson Angeline Protogere said the study misses important context. 

“There are a lot of considerations that go into plant dispatch decisions, and the priority is always reliability of service and economics,” Protogere said. “We weren’t able to replicate the NRDC data, but it appears it’s based on incomplete information. For example, there are times when MISO calls on a unit because of grid reliability needs. There’s a bigger picture that’s not reflected here.”

Skewed markets

The NRDC study found that over three years across MISO, about 400 MW of wind power was curtailed in favor of power from coal plants generating at higher-than-market costs. 

Power producers bid into regional energy reverse-auctions for real-time and next-day power, offering the price for which they can produce their electricity. Grid operators like MISO and PJM are supposed to dispatch the power starting with the most affordable option, until demand is met. 

Even if vertically integrated utilities are not selling their power on the open market but rather serving their own customers, they still need to be dispatched by the grid operator to send their energy onto the grid. 

But under the rules for MISO and other grid operators, coal plants can “self-commit” to run for a given time period even if they cannot produce power below the market rate. The idea is that coal plants can’t ramp up or down quickly, so they may need to keep running at a certain level to be ready to provide more power when needed.

If this relatively expensive coal power weren’t on the grid, more wind power would be purchased and demand for new renewables would likely be created. 

“That increment of power would be filled through the market selecting the next highest bidder,” providing “an accurate picture of what electricity should cost that gives a signal that incentivizes newer generation,” explained James Gignac, Union of Concerned Scientists Midwest senior policy manager. 

The lower the energy prices at a given time and the lower the demand, the worse the coal plant dispatch problem gets. Data from RMI and a 2020 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that ratepayer losses due to uneconomic coal dispatch were lower in 2022, because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused natural gas prices to spike, making coal more competitive by comparison. Conversely, when energy demand plummeted in 2020 because of the pandemic, uneconomic dispatch of coal plants soared. 

Since 2015, the uneconomic dispatch of coal plants has cost Indiana ratepayers $1.9 billion and ratepayers nationwide $20 billion, according to RMI’s dashboard. 

The issue has real impacts on the growth of renewables, experts note. If the practice was prevented, market prices would be higher and there would be more incentive for renewable developers to build projects to sell their power on the open market. Meanwhile if vertically-integrated utilities were not allowed to recoup their costs for uneconomic dispatch, they would be motivated not to run coal plants and might decide to invest in building renewables instead, or at least buy wind power on the open market.

“I’ve talked with [wind] developers who say they look at where coal plants self-commit uneconomically, and they avoid those transmission lines because they know they will be curtailed,” said Joseph Daniel, principal in RMI’s Carbon Free Electricity team and lead author of the Union of Concerned Scientists report. 

That report shows that if uneconomic coal dispatch was avoided, Indiana customers would save money — but not as much money as ratepayers in other states, because there is less wind power available around Indiana. Over time, a market unfettered by uneconomic coal plants might correct this situation. 

“The greatest immediate savings for customers from stopping uneconomic coal plant operations are in areas where there are existing low-cost resources such as wind power being curtailed by that behavior,” said Gignac. “If the replacement for the uneconomic coal generation is something like a relatively higher-cost gas plant, then the market clearing price is higher and customer savings are not as significant. However, that higher clearing price is a signal and an incentive for low-cost renewables to locate projects in that area and deliver further cost savings. 

“Removing the market distortion of uneconomic coal operations helps move us toward the cleaner, lower-cost energy system we need.” 

Solutions

Studies show that coal plants that sell their power on the open market – known as “merchant” plants – rarely decide to operate when they are not getting market prices at least equal to their cost of operating – the way vertically-integrated or publicly-owned coal plants do when they know they can recoup their costs from ratepayers, without compensation from the market. In other words, merchant plants do not ask grid operators to be uneconomically dispatched. 

These merchant plants nonetheless seem to ramp up in time to operate when their power is needed, experts note, indicating that vertically-integrated plant operators in MISO are understating their ability to ramp up and down quickly, as noted by NRDC policy analyst Dana Ammann and other experts.

“There’s so little incentive to ramp up quickly, because the market really accommodates their inflexibility,” said Ammann, lead author of the recent NRDC study. The vertically-integrated coal plants in MISO are “much less flexible than coal plants in other markets. In PJM you see coal plants turning on much more quickly, since the merchant plant operators are reliant on the price signals to turn a profit. They don’t have the guaranteed rate recovery, so they’re very responsive to price signals.” 

State utility commissions can prevent regulated utilities from recouping costs when coal plants are dispatched uneconomically. Michigan regulators did exactly this last year in a rate case for Indiana Michigan (I&M) Power, preventing the utility from passing on such costs for its share of the Rockport coal plant, located in Indiana.

Daniel said Indiana regulators should likewise protect Indiana customers from paying for uneconomic power from the Rockport plant. The RMI dashboard shows that plant dispatched $142 million worth of such power last year. Meanwhile the Michigan ruling could be considered precedent for Michigan utilities like DTE and Consumers Energy in future rate cases. 

Ammann noted that states can also use the Integrated Resource Plan process to curb uneconomic dispatch, as Minnesota’s utility commission did when it recently decided that Otter Tail Power’s Coyote coal plant can only recoup costs during a designated power emergency.

“It’s an interesting approach for getting ratepayers basically off the hook for coal plants that aren’t retiring, that might still be economic to run for a small number of hours,” Ammann said. 

Grid operators like MISO may have the most important role to play in better managing markets, refusing to dispatch coal plants that aren’t necessary and doing deeper analysis to figure out exactly how much power is needed. Experts say multi-day markets – rather than just real-time and day-ahead ones – could better match supply with demand and avoid unnecessary coal plant dispatch. 

MISO’s Independent Market Monitor has recommended such measures, including de-committing coal power producers who sold into the day-ahead market if it turns out that others – including renewables – could sell power more efficiently in the real-time market once the time comes. 

“MISO works closely with our members, state regulators and our independent market monitor to ensure our markets are efficient,” said MISO spokesperson Brandon Morris. MISO’s June 2024 monthly operations report shows that in June, 18% of coal-fired power dispatched in the region was uneconomic self-committed dispatch. 

Experts note that fuel delivery contracts often include a minimum purchase, so utilities committed to buying a certain amount of fuel might as well burn the fuel even if they are not making a profit on the power. This might not have been an issue in years past when coal plants operated at high capacity most of the time, but as coal plants have become increasingly uncompetitive, the NRDC study notes, they are more likely to be committed to buy fuel they actually don’t need. Fuel contracts are usually of short duration, with 88% of those reviewed by the federal Energy Information Administration expiring by 2025, meaning there is ample opportunity for fuel delivery contracts to be revised, the NRDC study said. 

Such fuel contracts have meant massive stocks of unneeded coal piling up at Duke plants in Indiana, Inskeep said, forcing the company to burn it even if the power isn’t needed.

Protogere said the coal supplies are necessary, as “the goal is to ensure a reliable supply in an increasingly uncertain market. The aim is to manage volatility as well as maintain long-term supply reliability and security, so that we don’t have to resort to higher cost options in the market.”

Inskeep hopes state regulators deny requests by Duke and other utilities to increase coal-fired generation and the recouping of the costs from ratepayers. 

“The bottom line with this uneconomic dispatch situation is it means utilities are keeping their old expensive coal plants open longer than they should,” Inskeep said. “Utilities should be rapidly transitioning to a renewable energy-based portfolio of resources. Instead, utilities are feeling pressure to justify a lot of the bad economic decisions they’ve made in the past, foolish decisions to invest millions or even billions of dollars to keep these plants open.”


Kari Lydersen wrote this article for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email