Alternative technologies key to FERC transmission orders' success: ACORE
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Orders 1920 and 1920-A create space for a more holistic transmission planning framework marked by collaboration between transmission providers and state utility regulators, according to an American Council on Renewable Energy report published in April.
Alternative transmission technologies, or ATTs, mentioned in the orders — dynamic line ratings, advanced power flow control, transmission switching and high-performance conductors — can speed development of a more reliable, resilient, efficient and ultimately cost-effective transmission network, principals with The Brattle Group and Grid Strategies said in 'Incorporating GETs and HPCs Into Transmission Planning Under FERC Order 1920.'
Transmission planners and state entities must overcome four key barriers to ATT implementation at scale: insufficient recognition of their value, misaligned incentives, overly static and deterministic planning practices, and an apparent lack of capacity to perform advanced system analyses, the report said.
Former FERC Commissioner Allison Clements hailed Order 1920 as 'a strong step that can considerably enhance grid reliability while making electricity more affordable for consumers' shortly after its issuance last May.
But Order 1920 was just an incremental step, one 'forged through compromise,' Clements said.
In November, after a diverse collection of clean energy groups and mostly Republican-controlled states challenged the order in federal courts, FERC issued a modified order that it said 'further enhances the role of Relevant State Entities in Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning, especially their role in shaping scenario development and cost allocation.' Among other enhancements, Order 1920-A requires transmission providers to incorporate state entities' input on planners' future scenario development in recognition that those scenarios will reflect states' own plans to meet legislative or regulatory obligations, FERC said.
While Order 1920 leaves the details of scenario development to transmission providers, it requires them to develop at least three 'plausible and diverse' scenarios identifying long-term transmission needs and solutions, quantify those solutions' benefits and establish a process for evaluating each solution, according to the ACORE report.
Order 1920 sets certain 'broad standards' for these evaluations that guide transmission providers toward more efficient and cost-effective facilities, ACORE said. It describes seven benefits that providers must consider, including: reduced loss of load probability or reduced capital costs to meet planning reserve margins; reduced transmission energy losses; reduced congestion due to transmission outages; and mitigation of extreme weather conditions and unexpected system conditions like those that may have contributed to the massive blackout in Spain and Portugal last month.
Compared with traditional wires-based solutions, ATTs are cheaper and faster to deploy, complementary to existing equipment, and — in the case of software- and controls-based grid-enhancing technologies — possible to reverse, ACORE said.
In fact, an ACORE review of 25 case studies conducted by transmission providers, power system consultants and others showed that ATTs delivered at least one of the seven benefits in each study. Several case studies showed two or more benefits from ATTs.
Relevant state entities can take advantage of their expanded latitude under Order 1920-A to advocate for consideration of additional benefits beyond the required seven, such as deployment time and optionality, that may favor ATTs, ACORE said. For example, grid-enhancing technologies' short payback periods mean transmission operators can cost-effectively deploy them as a temporary solution while planning for more permanent solutions, such as new wires.
Likewise, Orders 1920 and 1920-A allow relevant state entities and transmission customers to fund some or all transmission solution costs if they wish, which could improve the transmission providers' cost-benefit calculation for non-wires solutions. And given that transmission providers generally pass transmission costs onto customers, that approach could potentially overcome providers' traditional lack of incentive for cost avoidance, ACORE said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Raymond James Remains a Buy on AT&T Inc. (T), Sets a PT of $31
AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) is one of the most undervalued blue chip stocks to buy according to hedge funds. In a report released on July 24, Frank Louthan from Raymond James maintained a Buy rating on AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) with a price target of $31.00. Ken Wolter / The rating came after AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) reported its fiscal Q2 2025 results on July 23, with total revenues and adjusted EBITDA both growing 3.5% year-over-year at a consolidated level. Adjusted EPS for the quarter reached $0.54, up approximately 6% from $0.51 in the prior year. Free cash flow also rose from $4 billion in the prior year to $4.4 billion in Q2 2025. AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) expects Q3 2025 capital investment to be in the $5 billion to $5.5 billion range, with free cash flow in the $4.5 billion to $5 billion range. AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) provides telecommunications and technology services and operates through the Communications and Latin America segments. Its Communications segment offers wireline telecom, wireless, and broadband services in the US and globally, while the Latin America segment manages services in Mexico. While we acknowledge the potential of T as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
E&E News
3 days ago
- E&E News
Two pipelines, one path: Will FERC approve both?
Two energy giants plan to build natural gas pipelines in the same place — setting the stage for a high-stakes squabble in the Southeast. Both Williams Cos. and Mountain Valley Pipeline are trying to lay new pipe along Williams' existing Transco line in southern Virginia and North Carolina to meet growing energy demand. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could approve both. But Williams has argued that its pipeline is big enough to handle all planned volumes of natural gas — prompting Mountain Valley to bristle at the implication that its Southgate project isn't necessary. Advertisement 'It seems as though Transco is attempting to undercut MVP Southgate,' Ian Heming, a natural gas analyst at East Daley Analytics, said in a recent interview. That is noteworthy in the world of energy permitting. While FERC is required to consider whether a pipeline is needed, the agency generally defines need as whether companies have committed to buying the gas the line would carry. Williams has cast a broader net, telling FERC in a short filing this month that the company could tack on Southgate's 'incremental' volumes by adding meter tubes and regulation at an existing station. The companies' push to build the pipelines comes as electricity demand across the United States is forecast to surge in the coming years. That includes the Southeast, where utilities are looking to build new fossil fuel plants to power a growing population and planned data centers. Both Williams' and Mountain Valley's projects cite that demand at the heart of their proposals. Both companies are proposing to build about 30 miles of pipe along Williams' massive Gulf-to-New York Transco gas pipeline system. Both pipelines — MVP Southgate and the Eden Loop segment of Williams' Southeast Supply Enhancement Project (SSEP) — would start at the same point near Chatham, Virginia, and end near Eden, North Carolina. FERC is planning to release environmental assessments of both projects this fall, with the review for Williams' SSEP slated for November and the analysis for MVP Southgate scheduled for October. What's not being considered is the interest of ratepayers, said Shelley Robbins, senior decarbonization manager at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Her group doesn't think either pipeline is needed — and has safety concerns about plans to have the two lines repeatedly cross each other and the Transco main line. But Robbins said regulators don't seem to be looking at any advantages of building one pipe instead of two. 'In theory, that's cheaper,' Robbins said. But, she added, 'the utilities and the pipeline companies make money building big things.' Dueling projects Building both pipelines would create a 30-mile corridor with up to six high-pressure gas lines running next to each other. The Transco system already includes as many as four parallel pipelines in that area. The MVP Southgate project aims to move gas from the end of the main Mountain Valley pipeline — where it connects to Transco in Virginia — to Eden, North Carolina. Another company is building a 45-mile pipeline from that point east to a planned Duke Energy natural gas-fired power plant near Roxboro, North Carolina. FERC approved Southgate in 2020, but Mountain Valley submitted an application in February to amend the expansion project by shrinking the pipeline's length and increasing its diameter. The entire length of the proposed Southgate project now runs next to Williams' Transco pipeline. In total, Williams' Transco Southeast Supply Enhancement project would add approximately 55 miles of new pipe in two segments in parts of Virginia and North Carolina, as well as new compressor units. One 24-mile segment, the Salem Loop, cuts between the North Carolina cities of Winston-Salem and Greensboro. The other, the 30-mile Eden Loop, straddles the North Carolina-Virginia border and follows the same path of MVP Southgate. It's unclear if Williams will ultimately decide to expand the capacity of the Eden Loop. But the company is essentially arguing in its FERC filings that it has the ability to expand and then 'would be able to essentially hold its almost full monopoly on gas into North Carolina, and that's what its goal is here,' said Heming at East Daley Analytics. Mountain Valley, however, is asserting that the Southgate project would provide a needed redundancy to utilities that are supplying gas to North Carolina residents. 'The market has spoken, and shippers are asking for a pipeline alternative to Transco to support increased competition for transportation services in the region, and to provide critically needed natural gas pipeline capacity and diversity of supply to the region,' Mountain Valley told FERC in a July 11 letter. Mountain Valley included supportive comments from the Public Service Co. of North Carolina and Duke Energy, two utilities that have signed contracts for the project's full capacity. MVP Southgate spokesperson Shawn Day said the amended project gives North Carolina a diverse energy supply and resilience. 'While Transco may not like competition, the market does,' Day said in a statement. 'The vast majority of North Carolina's natural gas supply has historically been controlled by a single provider,' Day said. 'For years, the North Carolina Utilities Commission has recognized the state needs an additional interstate natural gas transmission provider to diversify the state's natural gas supply and promote competition.' Williams said it will continue to engage with parties like Mountain Valley to ensure the Southeast Supply Enhancement Project can deliver energy. 'We acknowledge that there is a market desire for a second interstate pipeline to bring supplies into North Carolina,' Williams said in an emailed statement. The company did not respond to subsequent questions for clarity on whether it believes the Southgate line is necessary. A demonstrated need? The Trump administration's pro-fossil-fuel agenda makes it more likely that FERC would green-light MVP Southgate and 'provide that redundant gas supply, rather than have it be integrated into Transco's Southeast Supply Enhancement,' Heming said. FERC, though, has stayed mum. Asked after last month's FERC meeting whether both pipelines are needed, Chair Mark Christie (R) said he couldn't comment because the applications for the two pipeline projects are still pending. 'The question of need under the Natural Gas Act is always a central question of any NGA application, so I can't talk about either one of them,' Christie said. FERC spokesperson Celeste Miller subsequently declined to comment on questions about the two pipeline projects. At least one environmental group, meanwhile, said both pipeline projects are unnecessary. 'We don't accept that there is a shown need for the projects, and it's part of this broader over-expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure to serve data centers and [artificial intelligence],' said Jessica Sims, Virginia field coordinator for the group Appalachian Voices. Sims, who was involved in the fight against the main Mountain Valley pipeline, said she hopes that neither project will get approved. 'I hope that the uniqueness of the co-located routes and the types of conversations that we're seeing in the docket would lead [FERC] to consider cumulative impacts in this circumstance,' Sims said.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
AT&T to Pay Out Huge Data Breach Settlement, and You Might Be Eligible for Up to $5K
Two sizable data breaches in 2019 and 2024 exposed the personal information of AT&T customers, but now the company is set to resolve the matter with a gigantic settlement pay out -- and you don't even have to still be a customer to get in on it. On Friday, June 20, US District Judge Ada Brown granted preliminary approval to the terms of a proposed settlement from AT&T that would resolve two lawsuits related to the data breaches. The current settlement would see AT&T pay $177 million to customers adversely affected by at least one of the two data breaches. The settlement will prioritize larger payments to customers who suffered damages that are "fairly traceable" to the data leaks. It will also provide bigger payments to those affected by the larger of the two leaks, which began in 2019. While the company is working toward a settlement, it has continued to deny that it was "responsible for these criminal acts." For all the details we have about the settlement right now, keep reading, and for more info about other recent settlements, find out how to claim Apple's Siri privacy settlement and see if you're eligible for 23andMe's privacy breach settlement. What happened with these AT&T data breaches? AT&T confirmed the two data breaches last year, announcing an investigation into the first in March before confirming it in May and confirming the second in July. The first of the confirmed breaches began in 2019. The company revealed that about 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former account holders had their data exposed to hackers, including names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth. The company began investigating the situation last year after it reported that customer data had appeared on the dark web. The second breach began in April of 2024, when a hacker broke into AT&T cloud storage provider Snowflake and accessed 2022 call and text records for almost all of the company's US customers, about 109 million in all. The company stressed that no names were attached to the stolen data. Two individuals were arrested in connection with the breach. Both of these incidents sparked a wave of class action lawsuits alleging corporate neglect on the part of AT&T in failing to sufficiently protect its customers. Who is eligible to file a claim for the AT&T data breach settlement? As of now, we know that the settlement will pay out to any current or former AT&T customer whose data was accessed in one of these data breaches, with higher payments reserved for those who can provide documented proof that they suffered damages directly resulting from their data being stolen. If you're eligible, you should receive a notice about it, either by email or a physical letter in the mail, sometime in the coming months. The company expects that the claims process will begin on Aug. 4, 2025. How much will the AT&T data breach payments be? You'll have to "reasonably" prove damages caused by these data breaches to be eligible for the highest and most prioritized payouts. For the 2019 breach, those claimants can receive up to $5,000. For the Snowflake breach in 2024, the max payout will be $2,500. It's not clear at this time how the company might be handling customers who've been affected by both breaches. AT&T will focus on making those payments first, and whatever's left of the $177 million settlement total will be disbursed to anyone whose data was accessed, even without proof of damages. Because these payouts depend on how many people get the higher amounts first, we can't say definitively how much they will be. When could I get paid from the AT&T data breach settlement? AT&T expects that payments will start to go out sometime in early 2026. Exact dates aren't available but the recent court order approving the settlement lists a notification schedule of Aug. 4, to Oct. 17, 2025. The deadline for submitting a claim is currently set at Nov. 18, 2025. The final approval of the settlement needs to be given at a Dec. 3, 2025, court hearing for payments to begin. Stay tuned to this piece in the coming months to get all the new details as they emerge. For more money help, check out CNET's daily tariff price impact tracker. Solve the daily Crossword
