National Academies Report Released: Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System

Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by the Committee on Enhancing the Robustness and Resilience of Future Electrical Transmission and Distribution in the United States to Terrorist Attack; Board on Energy and Environmental Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; and the National Research Council titled, Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System (2012). The 165-page report available here with a one-time registration, discusses how,

[t]he electric power delivery system that carries electricity from large central generators to customers could be severely damaged by a small number of well-informed attackers. The system is inherently vulnerable because transmission lines may span hundreds of miles, and many key facilities are unguarded. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the fact that the power grid, most of which was originally designed to meet the needs of individual vertically integrated utilities, is being used to move power between regions to support the needs of competitive markets for power generation. Primarily because of ambiguities introduced as a result of recent restricting the of the industry and cost pressures from consumers and regulators, investment to strengthen and upgrade the grid has lagged, with the result that many parts of the bulk high-voltage system are heavily stressed.

Electric systems are not designed to withstand or quickly recover from damage inflicted simultaneously on multiple components. Such an attack could be carried out by knowledgeable attackers with little risk of detection or interdiction. Further well-planned and coordinated attacks by terrorists could leave the electric power system in a large region of the country at least partially disabled for a very long time. Although there are many examples of terrorist and military attacks on power systems elsewhere in the world, at the time of this study international terrorists have shown limited interest in attacking the U.S. power grid. However, that should not be a basis for complacency. Because all parts of the economy, as well as human health and welfare, depend on electricity, the results could be devastating.

Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System focuses on measures that could make the power delivery system less vulnerable to attacks, restore power faster after an attack, and make critical services less vulnerable while the delivery of conventional electric power has been disrupted.

Congressional Research Service Report Released: U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does Wind Generation Impact Competitive Power Markets?

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, just issued the report U.S. Renewable Electricity: How Does Wind Generation Impact Competitive Power Markets? (Nov. 7, 2012). The 27-page report authored by Phillip Brown, 

analyzes the impacts of wind generation on competitive power markets, including financial and economic impacts on electric power generators. Overall, the goal of this report is to provide context for several electricity market concepts that are relevant to understanding the economic effects of wind power generation. Additionally, this report addresses three specific questions about the market interaction of wind power and electric power generators: (1) How might wind power affect wholesale market clearing prices? (2) Does wind power contribute to negative wholesale power price events within competitive electric power markets? and (3) Does wind power impact electric system reliability? This report focuses on data and information available for competitive electricity markets that are managed by a regional transmission operator (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). Specific information for three RTO/ISO organizations is provided in this report: (1) Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO), PJM, and (3) Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). These three RTOs were selected for the analysis in an effort to limit the scope of this report. Furthermore, these RTOs are commonly cited as markets that are being affected by wind power generation. As a result, there is no discussion of wind power market impacts within cost-of-service, vertically integrated electricity markets that are common in the West and Southeast regions of the United States, nor is there any discussion of how wind power is managed by federally owned transmission system operators such as the Bonneville Power Administration.

Air Emissions and Electricity Generation at U.S. Power Plants -- GAO

Air Emissions and Electricity Generation at U.S. Power Plants (GAO-12-545R, Apr 18, 2012) found that "Older electricity generating units—those that began operating in or before 1978—provided 45 percent of electricity from fossil fuel units in 2010 but produced a disproportionate share of emissions, both in aggregate and per unit of electricity generated. Overall, in 2010 older units contributed 75 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 64 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, and 54 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel units. For each unit of electricity generated, older units collectively emitted about 3.6 times as much sulfur dioxide, 2.1 times as much nitrogen oxides, and 1.3 times as much carbon dioxide as newer units.

The difference in emissions between older units and their newer counterparts may be attributed to a number of factors. First, 93 percent of the electricity produced by older fossil fuel units in 2010 was generated by coal-fired units. Compared with natural gas units, coal-fired units produced over 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, twice as much carbon dioxide and over five times as much nitrogen oxides per unit of electricity, largely because coal contains more sulfur and carbon than natural gas.

Second, fewer older units have installed emissions controls, which reduce emissions by limiting their formation or capturing them after they are formed. Among coal-fired units—which produce nearly all sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power generation—approximately 26 percent of older units used controls for sulfur dioxide, compared with 63 percent of newer units. Controls for nitrogen oxide emissions were more common among all types of fossil fuel units, but these controls vary widely in their effectiveness. Among older units, 14 percent had installed selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment, the type of control capable of reducing the greatest amount of nitrogen oxides emissions, compared with 33 percent of newer units. In addition, approximately 38 percent of older units did not have any controls for nitrogen oxides, compared with 6 percent of newer units.

Third, lower emissions among newer units may be attributable in part to improvements in the efficiency with which newer units convert fuel into electricity. Nonetheless, older units remain an important part of the electricity generating sector, particularly in certain regions of the United States."

A Primer on Pending Environmental Regulations and their Potential Impacts on Electric System Reliability -- NESCAUM

A Primer on Pending Environmental Regulations and their Potential Impacts on Electric System Reliability a report by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management updated February 2012

"The purpose of this primer is to provide a basic background on recent and pending U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rules affecting the electric power generation sector (with coal power plants being a major focus). Several studies are briefly summarized that have assessed the environmental regulations’ possible collective impact on power plant retirements and electric system reliability. Where available, USEPA analyses of the costs and benefits of proposed and final rules are presented. Also presented are planning options identified in several of the scenario studies that can help mitigate potential reliability issues."

The EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche -- Texas Public Policy Foundation

The EPA's Approaching Regulatory Avalanche, a report from the Texas Public Policy Foundation finds that there has been increasing regulatory activity on the part of the EPA and that the cumulative effect of these EPA rules which are scheduled to become effective in the next three years could cost more than $1 trillion and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

"Four of the rules, directed at electric generation, threaten the fundamental viability of continued
coal-fired generation—now the mainstay of the nation’s electric power. The Federal Energy Reliability Commission (FERC), the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC), and multiple studies conclude that these four EPA rules risk the involuntary retirement of over 80 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity by 2015.  The possibility of losing up to 8 percent of the country’s current 1,010 GW of electric generating capacity should be a wake-up call as to the magnitude of EPA’s regulatory agenda. On EPA’s current schedule, there is not sufficient lead time to replace this amount of the nation’s electric power supply.

Power outages, higher electric rates, job losses, sharply regressive impacts on families with low or fixed incomes, and the relocation of U.S. industries to foreign countries are highly likely outcomes under EPA’s regulatory plan.

This paper reviews 10 EPA rules now adopted, proposed, or scheduled for proposal:

1. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR);

2. Electric Utility Maximum Available Control Technology Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Utility MACT);

3. Industrial Boiler MACT;

4. Portland Cement Kiln MACT;

5. Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule (CWIS);

6. Coal Combustion Residuals Rule (CCR);

7. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS);

8. Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS;

9. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation of Stationary Sources;

10. GHG

AEP v. Connecticut: The Decision and its Implications BNA Webinar

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut (AEP), the first climate change nuisance lawsuit to reach the high court. In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency regulations authorized by the act displace the federal common law cause of action. Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling, the high court held federal common law nuisance claims cannot be brought against utilities for their greenhouse gas emissions. The Second Circuit had allowed eight states, New York City, and three land trusts to move forward with claims against the utility company defendants alleging they have created a public nuisance by contributing to global warming.

Significantly, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on the issue of whether the petitioners demonstrated they had standing to bring the claim and affirmed the Second Circuit's ruling that they did. The Supreme Court did not address issues raised by petitioners at oral argument and in briefing regarding the political doctrine defense. It remanded the case for consideration of plaintiffs’ state law nuisance claim, which was not before the court on this appeal. The high court suggested that on remand the court should consider whether the state law cause of action is preempted. Clearly, the ruling in AEP will have broad implications for U.S. industries that emit greenhouse gases.

This 90-minute webinar, a second in a series, featuring Christina M. Carroll , J. Randolph Evans, and Joanne Zimolzak of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, is designed to help attendees:

•Become knowledgeable about the key points raised and outcomes resulting from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the AEP case
•Analyze the impact and implications of the standing holding in the AEP case
•Understand how ongoing litigation may be impacted by the decision, including the effect on the outcome of a related case, Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.
•Consider the interrelationships between the AEP decision and executive and legislative branch greenhouse gas emission policies, and
•Understand what the AEP case addressed and what questions remain

Advanced electric meter installations rising in homes and businesses -- EIA

This report from the Energy Information Administration finds that electric meters with enhanced communication capabilities — an essential component of the smart grid — are becoming more prevalent. This offers the possibility that electric systems will become more reliable and efficient. In 2009, 39% of all U.S. electrical customers had advanced meters, up from 32% in 2008.

Advanced meters can use one-way communication (known as Automated Meter Reading, or AMR), which enables the utility to do remote meter reading, or two-way communication (Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or AMI). In 2009, 17% of advanced meters used two-way communication, up from 10% in 2008. These two-way meters are often referred to as "smart meters."

Pace Energy and Climate Center Releases Study on Impact of July 2006 Con Edison Power Outage in Western Queens

This report studies the effects of the electrical failure of Con Edison's Long Island City network causing a power outage in Wester Queens County, New York. Pace Energy and Climate Center and several partners were selected by the NYS PSC to study the economic and health impacts that were a result of the outage.

Coal Power Plants: Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

This Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-10-675) dated July 2010 concludes that addressing climate change while retaining the use of coal to generate electricity will likely require the successful deployment of CCS and efficiency technologies in coal power plants. CCS, in particular, remains relatively immature compared to efficiency technologies, but offers the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants to a greater extent.

The current regulatory and legislative efforts to reduce CO2 emissions at coal power plants include consideration of the commercial availability of CCS. DOE plays a key role both in its efforts to advance CCS and efficiency technologies toward commercialization and in giving policymakers an accurate view of their maturity.

However, because the agency does not systematically assess their development, DOE is unable to provide a clear picture of the maturity of these technologies or the necessary resources that might be required to move these technologies toward commercial demonstration. This lack of information limits congressional oversight of the hundreds of millions of dollars DOE is currently spending annually on efforts to advance coal technologies, and it hampers policymakers’ efforts to gauge the maturity of these technologies as they consider climate change policies.

Electric Power Storage

This Congressional Research Service Report (R40797) dated, September 8, 2009, summarizes the technical, regulatory, and policy issues that surround implementation
of electric power storage (EPS).

Electricity storage is one of several non-traditional technologies and methods of meeting power demand that are of current Congressional interest (others include distributed generation, renewable power, and demand response). EPS and these other alternatives do not fit the traditional power industry paradigm, which involves reliance on large scale central power plants and long distance transmission lines to meet demand. This raises the question of how quickly and effectively the power industry and its regulators will be willing to pursue and deploy new
approaches. Electricity storage is also currently a relatively high cost technology, another factor which could delay its deployment.

The report identifies several areas for possible cfongressional oversight, including:
• Power industry and state regulator acceptance of storage technologies.
• Integration of storage into transmission system planning, including integration of
renewable power into the electricity grid.
• Federal executive agency focus on EPS as a solution to power system needs.
• The application of incentives for electric power storage development included in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5).

The report discusses how the provisions of several pending bills relate to the development of electric power storage, including S. 1091, the Storage Technology of Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2009 (STORAGE Act); H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES); and S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA).

Electric Power Flash - August

The Monthly Flash Estimates of Electric Power Data (“Flash Estimates”) is prepared by the Electric Power Division, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. Data published in the Flash Estimates are compiled from the following sources: Form EIA-826,“Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenues with State Distributions Report,” Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report,” Form EIA-920, “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report,” and Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report.”

Energy and Water: Preliminary Observations on the Lnks Between and Biofuels and Electricity Production

This Government Accountability Office testimony dated July 9, 2009 (GAO-09-862T) explains that the effects of producing corn-based ethanol on water supply and water
quality are fairly well understood, less is known about the effects of the next
generation of biofuel feedstocks.

Water usage in the corn-based ethanol conversion process has been declining and is currently estimated at 3 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, the amount of water consumed in the conversion of cellulosic feedstocks is less defined and will depend on the process and on technological advancements that improve the efficiency with
which water is used.

Clean Air Act: Preliminary Observations on the Effectiveness and Costs of Mercury Control Technologies at Coal-Fired Power Plants

This testimony by the Government Accountability Office (GAO-09-860T) dated July 9, 2009 explains that substantial mercury reductions using mercury control technology systems commercially and in tests were achieved with all three main types of coal and on boiler configurations that exist at nearly three-fourths of U.S. coal-fired power plants.

Alliance; Wester Resource Advocates, Western Watersheds Project, County of San Miguel, Colorado v. Dept of Interior

This compaint seeks to block the placement of electrical transmission lines over federal lands.

Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings

This fact sheet by the Environmental Protection Agency list 44 coal slurry impounds that are highly susceptible to failure that could cause the loss of human life.

In response to an EPA information request on units handling wet or slurried CCRs, electric utilities have so far identified a total of 427 units managing slurried CCRs. Forty-four (44) of these units at 26 different locations have been assigned a high hazard potential rating, using the criteria developed by the National Dam Safety Program for the National Inventory of Dams. Hazard potential ratings are generally assigned by the State Dam Safety officials.

The National Inventory of Dams hazard potential ratings address the potential consequences of failure or misoperation of the dam. A high hazard potential rating indicates that a failure will probably cause loss of human life. The rating is not an indication of the structural integrity of the unit or the possibility that a failure will occur in the future; it merely allows dam safety and other officials to determine where significant damage or loss of life may occur if there is a structural failure of the unit. EPA’s assessment of the 26 facilities that have units with high hazard potential ratings continues to be an Agency priority. EPA has conducted on-site assessments, which are undergoing Agency review, at 11 of these facilities. The remaining 15 of these facilities have had state inspections within the past 12 months and EPA will be reviewing the reports from those inspections. EPA plans to make public the results of our assessments as soon as they are completed.