DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing Stakeholder Conflicts Over Energy Infrastructure: Case Studies from New England’S Energy Transition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managing Stakeholder Conflicts Over Energy Infrastructure: Case Studies from New England’S Energy Transition Managing Stakeholder Conflicts over Energy Infrastructure: Case Studies from New England’s Energy Transition by Marian Swain B.A. International Relations and German Tufts University, 2012 Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2019 © 2019 Marian Swain. All Rights Reserved The author hereby grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Author________________________________________________________________________ Department of Urban Studies and Planning May 21, 2019 Certified by____________________________________________________________________ Lawrence Susskind Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning Thesis Supervisor Accepted by___________________________________________________________________ Ceasar McDowell Professor of the Practice Co-Chair, MCP Committee 1 2 Managing Stakeholder Conflicts over Energy Infrastructure: Case Studies from New England’s Energy Transition by Marian Swain Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 21, 2019 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning Abstract Large-scale energy infrastructure projects often spark controversy over possible negative impacts on the environment, the local economy, or abutting properties. The transition to clean energy is exacerbating these conflicts, since it requires a substantial build-out of new energy infrastructure. In this thesis, I use a case study analysis of recent electricity transmission and offshore wind projects in New England to examine the key sources of stakeholder opposition and the impact of stakeholder conflicts on project outcomes. My four cases include both successful and failed projects: Hydro- Québec Phase I/II, Northern Pass, Cape Wind, and Vineyard Wind. Drawing on stakeholder interviews, public records, and media reports, I find that stakeholder conflicts contributed heavily to failed projects and played an important part in shaping the successful cases. The most common triggers of stakeholder opposition in these cases are visual and environmental impacts, concerns of competing industries, inter-state tensions, and efforts to exercise financial and political influence. I evaluate the factors that contribute to successful projects and offer recommendations for energy developers, policymakers, and regulators who want to make the energy facility siting process in New England more consensus-oriented, with the goal of helping the region accelerate its transition to clean energy. Keywords: siting, energy policy, public opposition, consensus-building, stakeholder engagement, electric transmission lines, offshore wind, New England Thesis supervisor: Lawrence Susskind, Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning 3 Acknowledgements Thank you to my advisor, Larry Susskind, for your mentorship throughout my studies at MIT and in the process of writing this thesis. You have influenced my practice tremendously and I feel very privileged to have learned from you. Thank you to my thesis reader, Paul Joskow, for sharing your deep expertise on energy markets and for making many invaluable introductions that made this research possible. Thank you to Jonathan Raab for informal advising during this research process and for making several helpful introductions. Thank you to the Priscilla King Gray Public Service Center at MIT for supporting a summer fellowship that influenced this research and my professional goals significantly. Thank you to Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, Carlos Batlle, Jesse Jenkins, and Scott Burger for your excellent course on electric power systems at MIT. Thank you to Professors David Hsu, Gabriella Carolini, Ari Peskoe, Jerold Kayden, and many others that made my graduate studies so rewarding. Thank you to my wonderful classmates at DUSP for feedback, commiseration, and inspiration throughout the thesis process. To everyone I interviewed, thank you for sharing your time, experiences, and reflections with me. Those interviews form the core of this thesis and have deeply influenced my understanding of these complex cases. I am also very grateful to the local journalists at outlets like the Providence Journal, ecoRI news, the New Hampshire Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, and Maine Public Radio for their dedicated reporting on the local impacts of these energy projects. As I traveled to conduct this research, I was also very grateful to the many public libraries in towns around New England that offered me a comfortable place to work away from home. Finally, thank you to my wonderful family and to Nony for your patience, love, and support as I worked on this thesis. You always center me and remind me why I care about this work. 4 Table of Contents 1 Introduction: Climate change and energy infrastructure ....................................8 1.1 Case studies: Wind and wires..................................................................................... 12 2 The energy siting challenge .................................................................................15 2.1 Evolution of the siting regulatory process ................................................................... 15 2.2 Local opposition: LULU and NIMBY ........................................................................... 17 2.3 Consensus-building approaches to facility siting........................................................ 20 3 Data and Methods .................................................................................................24 3.1 Research questions .................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Case study selection .................................................................................................. 25 3.3 Data collection and analysis ....................................................................................... 27 4 Results and Analysis .............................................................................................32 4.1 Hydro-Québec Phase I/II ............................................................................................ 32 4.1.1 Visual and environmental impacts ........................................................................ 34 4.1.2 Health concerns about electromagnetic fields ..................................................... 37 4.1.3 Inter-state fairness ............................................................................................... 39 4.1.4 Culture and management of the siting process .................................................... 40 4.1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................. 42 4.2 Northern Pass ............................................................................................................. 43 4.2.1 Inter-state costs and benefits .............................................................................. 45 4.2.2 Environmental and visual impacts ........................................................................ 46 4.2.3 Technology type and alternatives......................................................................... 50 4.2.4 Competing industries ........................................................................................... 52 4.2.5 Perceptions of Process ........................................................................................ 53 4.2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 56 4.3 Cape Wind .................................................................................................................. 58 4.3.1 Regulatory uncertainty ......................................................................................... 60 4.3.2 Wildlife conservation ............................................................................................ 62 4.3.3 Views and competing interests in Nantucket Sound ............................................ 64 4.3.4 Financial and political influence ........................................................................... 66 4.3.5 Perceptions of the process .................................................................................. 69 4.3.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 71 4.4 Vineyard Wind ............................................................................................................ 73 4.4.1 Technological change .......................................................................................... 75 4.4.2 Community outreach ........................................................................................... 76 5 4.4.3 Environmental concerns ...................................................................................... 79 4.4.4 Ocean planning.................................................................................................... 82 4.4.5 Commercial fishing .............................................................................................. 84 4.4.6 Perceptions of the process .................................................................................. 87 4.4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report
    Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report EEA #15787 December 17, 2018 Submitted to Prepared by Executive Office of Energy and Epsilon Associates, Inc. Environmental Affairs 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 MEPA Office Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Submitted by In Association with Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc. New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Geo SubSea LLC December 17, 2018 Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Attn: MEPA Office Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Secretary Beaton: On behalf of Vineyard Wind LLC (the Company, or Proponent), I am pleased to submit this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Vineyard Wind Connector1. A year ago, we submitted the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for this groundbreaking project. We are most appreciative of the concerted effort made by the entire EEA team to provide a constructive review, and to do so on an ambitious schedule. As we enter the final step of the MEPA review process, Vineyard Wind is pleased with the refinements that have been made to Project, many of which reflect input from your resource agencies as well as the Town of Barnstable. We look forward to continuing to work with the EEA team to bring the MEPA process to a productive conclusion, thus completing a central component of the public review of the Project. The balance of this letter provides an update on Project milestones, an overview of the refinements and improvements made since the submittal of the SDEIR in late August, and an update on the BOEM review process.
    [Show full text]
  • DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1
    BOX 1447, OAK BLUFFS, MASSACHUSETTS, 02557, 508‐693‐3453, FAX 508‐693‐7894 [email protected] WWW.MVCOMMISSION.ORG Martha's Vineyard Commission DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1. DESCRIPTION 1.1 Applicant: Vineyard Wind, LLC; Richard Andrade, Eric Peckar (Vineyard Power Cooperative); Kate McEneaney (Epsilon Associates); Rachel Pachter and Nate Mayo (Vineyard Wind). 1.2 Project Location: The proposed cables would run more or less north‐south for 12.4 or 13.7 miles below Edgartown waters approximately 1.2 miles offshore. 1.3 Proposal: The proposal is to install two 220‐kW export cables underneath the sea floor in two trenches that will pass approximately 1.2 miles offshore of Edgartown for either 12.4 or 13.7 miles (through the Edgartown waters stretch) using hydro‐plow or mechanical plow installation methods. Plans show two possible routes but only one is proposed to be installed. 1.4 Zoning: The project is offshore where there is no zoning. The area where the Wind Farm is proposed was designated a Wind Lease Area by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 1.5 Local Permits: The project will be reviewed locally by the Edg. Conservation Commission and the MVC. The Applicant has said they will conduct conversations with the Wampanoag Tribe. Other permits and reviews: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being conducted by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released on December 7, 2018, triggering a 45‐day public and agency review period (https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard‐Wind/) and is also at the Edgartown and Chilmark Public Libraries.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Market Report & Insights 2020
    RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND FARM — COURTESY OF ATKINS THE BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND U.S. OFFSHORE WIND MARKET REPORT & INSIGHTS 2020 MEMBERS ONLY The Business Network for Offshore Wind’s2020 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Insights offers an analysis of federal and state government activity to better understand how it may affect your business planning and the industry holistically. The federal government has turned its attention to the burgeoning industry to offer more regulation. Congress and federal agencies beyond the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management and U.S. Department of Energy are now affecting how the offshore wind industry will operate into the future. This report also discusses how some of the challenges facing offshore wind are being addressed. The health and safety of workers – whether onshore or offshore – are a paramount tenet within the industry. Particular- ly at this time, the offshore industry remains proactive in its response to the coronavirus epidemic, having put in place telework directives, eliminating unnecessary travel, and following government guidelines. As a result of these protocols, Europe has reported minimal disruptions to the supply chains and the 15 offshore wind projects in the U.S., remain in the planning and development stages. It is too soon to know exactly how the global COVID-19 epidemic disruption will affect the U.S. offshore wind in- dustry. Our main concern centers around the economic hardship a long-term shutdown and recession would place on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers. It is important to point out, however, that there is almost 10GWs of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Vineyard Wind Connector 2
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Karyn E. Polito LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Kathleen A. Theoharides Fax: (617) 626-1181 SECRETARY http://www.mass.gov/eea June 25, 2021 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME : Vineyard Wind Connector 2 PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Barnstable, Edgartown, Mashpee and Nantucket PROJECT WATERSHED : Cape and Islands EEA NUMBER : 16231 PROJECT PROPONENT : Vineyard Wind LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : April 7, 2021 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61- 62I) and Section 11.08 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and hereby determine that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. The Proponent may prepare and submit for review a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The project is a component of an 800-megawatt (MW) wind energy generating facility known as Park City Wind (PCW) to be constructed approximately 19 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard. The generating facility will occupy a section of the Proponent’s 261-square mile (166,866 acres) Lease Area designated as OCS-A 0501 that was awarded to the Proponent through a competitive lease sale conducted by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The Proponent plans to construct three wind generating facilities in the OCS-A 0501 lease area. The first, known as Vineyard Wind, is located in the northern part of the lease area; components of the transmission infrastructure associated with the Vineyard Wind project, known as the Vineyard Wind Connector 1 (VWC1) completed MEPA review in 2019 (EEA #15787).
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Turbines More Are Coming to Northeast Waters Can They Co-Exist with Commercial and Recreational Fishing? (See the Watch on Page 3)
    www.RISAA.org SEPTEMBER, 2018 • Issue 236 401-826-2121 Representing Over 7,500 Recreational Anglers Offshore Wind Turbines More are coming to Northeast waters Can they co-exist with commercial and recreational fishing? (see The Watch on page 3) R.I.S.A.A. / September, 2018 Wind Farms - Good or Bad? Unless you read nothing in this for fishing safeguards at every step of Sept 8 • 3:00 PM Fly Fishing Committee issue every month except this the process. fishing at Bristol Narrows President’s message (ha-ha), you will As this issue goes to press we are have noticed more and more articles attempting to set up a public Sept 18 • 6:30 RISAA Board of Directors about the offshore wind farms. This is informational meeting with the people Sept 19 • 6:00 PM Fly Fishing Committee especially in The Watch column, written from Deepwater Wind and Vineyard fishing at Weekapaug Breachway by Dave Monti as chairman of the Wind at the Elks so all interested RISAA Legislative Committee. members can come and hear about the Sept 24 • 7:00 PM RISAA Monthly The wind farms can’t be avoided. actual project proposals and ask Seminar There are currently proposals that, if all questions. Stay tuned.... came to fruition, would put thousands SALTWATER ANGLERS Sept 27 • 2:00 PM Fly Fishing Committee of wind turbines along our coasts. FOUNDATION fishing at Narrow River Current and proposed projects are LICENSE PLATES underway not only in Rhode Island and Sept 29 • 8:00 AM Kayak Committee After last month’s issue came out fishing at Fogland Beach, Tiverton Massachusetts, but also New York, with news of the Saltwater license New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, plates being available, I received a Oct 6 • 8:00 AM Kayak Committee Hawaii and California.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities
    Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities Fishery Management Council Coordinating Committee May 18, 2021 Brian Hooker | Office of Renewable Energy Programs Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Energy OCS Lands Act: "… vital national resource … expeditious and orderly development … environmental safeguards" Energy Policy Act of 2005: "… energy from sources other than oil and gas …" Alaska OCS Pacific OCS Gulf of Mexico OCS Atlantic OCS 2 Biden Administration Offshore Wind Energy Goals o March 29, 2021 the White House issued a “whole-of-government approach” to offshore wind energy development including: o Establishing a Target of Employing Tens of Thousands of Workers to Deploy 30 Gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of Offshore Wind by 2030 (BOEM). o Partnering with Industry on Data- Sharing (NOAA). o Studying Offshore Wind Impacts. (NOAA). 3 Renewable Energy Program by the Numbers Competitive Lease Sales Completed: 8 Active Commercial Offshore Leases: 17 Site Assessment Plans (SAPs) Approved: 11 General Activities & Research Plans Approved: 2 Construction and Operations Plans (COPs): • Under Review 14 • Anticipated within next 12 months 2 Regulatory Guidance: 11 Leasing Under Consideration: 7 Steel in the Water: 2020 4 Atlantic OCS Renewable Energy: “Projects in the Pipeline” Project Company 2020 Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot South Fork Vineyard Wind I Revolution Wind Skipjack Windfarm Empire Wind Bay State Wind U.S. Wind Sunrise Wind Ocean Wind Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Park City Wind Mayflower Wind Atlantic Shores Kitty Hawk 2030 OCS-A 0522 5 Pacific OCS Renewable Energy State Project Nominations California Humboldt Call Area 10 California Morro Bay Call Area 11 California Diablo Canyon Call Area 11 Hawaii Oahu North Call Area 2 Hawaii Oahu South Call Area 3 6 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Openhousecontent 5.17.21
    May 18, 2021 Tonight’s Speakers Seth Kaplan Christopher Hardy Director of External Affairs External Outreach Manager Joel Southall Kelsey Perry Fisheries Liaison Officer Community Liaison Officer 1 The Future of Clean Energy is Here • The need and opportunity for offshore wind to fulfill Massachusetts’ net-zero carbon emissions goals • Plans for making Massachusetts an offshore wind hub through investments in ports and supporting infrastructure, workforce development, innovative technologies, and applied research • An update on onshore electrical infrastructure plans • Next steps in the permitting and review process • Interactions with fisheries and marine users 2 Seth Kaplan Director of External Affairs 3 National Plans for Offshore Wind • President Biden’s clean energy plan includes 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030 • There are 15 active federal lease areas in the United States with a total offshore wind pipeline of 27,000 MW to date • 1 MW is enough to power 100,000 homes Source: American Wind Energy Association 4 The Climate Crisis & Need for Offshore Wind “Over the last century, annual air temperatures in the Northeast have been warming at an average rate of 0.5°F per decade since 1970. Winter temperatures have been rising at a faster rate of 1.3°F per decade on average. Even what seems like a very small rise in temperatures can cause major changes in climate patterns such as rain or snowfall.” Hill , Jessica. “Coastal Study Reveals Falmouth Spots VulneraBle to Climate Change.” Cape Cod Times, 2020. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has documented that sections of Cape Cod, including Falmouth, are eroding at greater than 1 foot per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board
    Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board Docket #EFSB 20-01 Volume I: Text May 28, 2020 Submitted to Prepared by Energy Facilities Siting Board Epsilon Associates, Inc. One South Station 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 Submitted by In Association with Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc. New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Gradient Geo SubSea LLC ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT PETITION BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD DOCKET #EFSB 20-01 Vineyard Wind Connector 2 VOLUME I: TEXT Submitted to: ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD One South Station Boston, MA 02114 Submitted by: VINEYARD WIND LLC 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 New Bedford, MA 02740 Prepared by: EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC. In Association with: 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 Foley Hoag LLP Stantec, Inc. Gradient Geo SubSea LLC May 28, 2020 Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME I 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.1 Introduction/Siting Board Jurisdiction 1-2 1.2 Offshore Wind, Background 1-4 1.2.1 Background on Offshore Wind Lease Areas 1-7 1.2.2 Connecticut Energy Legislation (An Act Concerning the Procurement of Energy Derived from Offshore Wind) 1-8 1.2.3 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan 1-9 1.3 Project Overview 1-10 1.3.1 Offshore Wind Array (Federal Waters, for background) 1-10 1.3.2 Offshore Transmission Cables 1-12 1.3.3 Onshore Export Cables 1-14 1.3.4 Substation 1-16 1.3.4.1 Containment System 1-18
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report: Executive Summary
    2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report Primary Authors Walter Musial, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Philipp Beiter, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Paul Spitsen, U.S. Department of Energy Jake Nunemaker, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Vahan Gevorgian, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2 U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Market−Key Findings ............................................................................... 2 Global Offshore Wind Energy Market−Key Findings ........................................................................... 6 Offshore Wind Energy Technology Trends−Key Findings.................................................................... 6 Offshore Wind Energy Cost and Price Trends−Key Findings ............................................................... 7 Future Outlook ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Primary Database Sources ............................................................................................................................... 9 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 i | 2018 Offshore Wind Technologies
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2021 Offshore Wind – East Coast Projects 1
    2021 Offshore Wind – East Coast Projects By John Benson January 2021 1. Introduction This is the first post of a 2-part paper and only covers the subtitle subject. The second post will cover everything else, including west coast activity, a new inter-government organization and new turbine developments. Although these are basically both completed, there will be two weeks between this post and part 2, as these originally started out as a single post (but was way too long), and I have committed to post another paper on 1/26. The last posts with the same subject as this was and last May. This is described and linked below. A Wet & Windy Post: This post focuses on updates for U.S. East Coast off-shore wind projects, and any advancements in products from turbine vendors that supply these to the aforementioned projects. https://energycentral.com/c/cp/wet-windy-post Although there has been some progress on the East Coast, most projects have slowed to a crawl – partially due to the Pandemic, but mostly due to delays by the outgoing administration. The former is being mitigated by the vaccines, and the latter will be toast after tomorrow (on Jan 20 and this paper is scheduled for posting on Jan 19). Also the new administration is likely to quickly accelerate the deployment of these projects due five reasons: the COVID-19 Vaccines, climate change mitigation, jobs, jobs, and jobs. 2. East Coast Each of the subsections below will deal with a single project or a series of stages for a large single project.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Capital Costs and REC Price Assumptions for ORTP
    Rev 2 Offshore Wind Capital Costs and REC Price Assumptions for ORTP Calculation Alex Worsley, Boreas Renewables LLC Carrie Gilbert, Daymark Energy Advisors NEPOOL Markets Committee July 14-15, 2020 www.renew-ne.org Follow us: @Renew_NE 1 About RENEW 2 About RENEW The comments expressed herein represent the views of RENEW and not necessarily those of any particular member of RENEW. Outline • Offshore Wind Capital Cost – Background – Analysis of implied capital costs from local PPA’s – Global capital cost trends – Recommendations • REC Price Block Island Wind Farm. https://www.vox.com/energy-and- environment/2018/5/25/17393156/offshore-wind-us-massachusetts-rhode- island-zinke 4 Background • ISO proposes to assume an overnight capital cost of $5,876/kW (2019$) for the FCA 16 offshore wind ORTP calculation – In discussion, cited Mott MacDonald’s confidential estimating database and the International Renewable Energy Agency’s (IRENA) “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018” report1 • We believe this cost assumption is unreasonable for projects to be built in the MA Offshore Lease Area in 2024-2025 – Recent PPA pricing suggests capital costs well below ISO’s assumption – Latest publicly available data regarding global offshore wind costs supports this claim (we examine IRENA’s Costs report from 20192) – Local OSW developers have significant experience building the largest OSW farms in the world 1) IRENA, “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018,” https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/May/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2018 5 2)
    [Show full text]
  • NEPOOL Participants Committee Report
    A P R I L 1 ST REPORT | TELECONFERENCE NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE | 4/1/21 Meeting Agenda item # 4 NEPOOL Participants Committee Report April 2021 Vamsi Chadalavada EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER ISO-NE PUBLIC NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE APR 1, 2021 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4 Table of Contents • Highlights Page 3 • ISO New England 2020-2021 Winter Operations Page 14 • System Operations Page 27 • Market Operations Page 41 • Back-Up Detail Page 58 – Demand Response Page 59 – New Generation Page 61 – Forward Capacity Market Page 68 – Reliability Costs - Net Commitment Period Page 75 Compensation (NCPC) Operating Costs – Regional System Plan (RSP) Page 104 – Operable Capacity Analysis – Spring 2021 Analysis Page 134 – Operable Capacity Analysis - Preliminary Summer 2021 Analysis Page 141 – Operable Capacity Analysis – Appendix Page 148 ISO-NE PUBLIC 2 NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE APR 1, 2021 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4 Regular Operations Report - Highlights ISO-NE PUBLIC 3 NEPOOL PARTICIPANTS COMMITTEE APR 1, 2021 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #4 Highlights • Day-Ahead (DA), Real-Time (RT) Prices and Transactions – Update: February 2021 Energy Market value totaled $759M – March 2021 Energy market value over the period was $324M, down $435M from February 2021 and up $152M from March 2020 • March natural gas prices over the period were 55% lower than February average values • Average RT Hub Locational Marginal Prices ($37.10/MWh) over the period were 48% lower than February averages – DA Hub: $38.83/MWh • Average March 2021 natural gas prices and RT Hub LMPs over the period were up 144% and 121%, respectively, from March 2020 averages – Average DA cleared physical energy during the peak hours as percent of forecasted load was 99% during March, down from 99.1% during February* • The minimum value for the month was 94.3% on Saturday, March 6th Data through March 24th.
    [Show full text]