CT Mirror reports that New England's electric grid is facing significant uncertainty as the region attempts to modernize its energy infrastructure. Most notably, plans to enhance interregional transmission are being threatened by potential policy changes and proposed budget cuts. United's Kat Burnham emphasized the need for more transmission infrastructure, urging regional coordination between the states amidst federal uncertainty.
Late last month — with considerable fanfare — nine northeastern states, including Connecticut, announced they were embarking on a groundbreaking interregional electric grid transmission effort.
It came just a few weeks after an announcement by the New England grid operator that it was soliciting proposals for new transmission to bring power — most likely land-based wind — from northern Maine into southern New England.
And that followed an announcement by the Biden administration’s energy department last August that the region would receive $389 million for a project called Power Up New England, which is primarily intended to provide the onshore connections and transmission for offshore wind power.
Here’s the problem, though. Even if all these transmission projects get built, the new power they’re supposed to connect to, such as offshore wind, faces headwinds from the Trump administration that could be strong enough to derail them entirely.
That potential became even more likely early Thursday with passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of a budget that could make any renewable power not already under construction financially implausible.
While concerning, the reality of a transmission and power mismatch is garnering less hand-wringing than you might expect. But one word you do hear over and over and over is uncertainty.
“The future is inherently uncertain,” said Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, DEEP. “And uncertainty as well as rapid changes in development and the developments in the energy world are nothing new. Think about the fracking boom, or the Great Recession, or the COVID pandemic or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These all upended prior assumptions and created short-term and sometimes long, long-term disruption.”
And then she made another point: “Energy infrastructure takes a really long time to build.”
That last point is also made repeatedly for why this seeming mismatch of problematic additional power and more transmission is less concerning to some.
“The worst time to be building transmission is when you have the generation all constructed, ready to go,” Dykes said.
The overwhelming sentiment – get going on that transmission and other infrastructure.
“Yes, we should move ahead. This is an important step forward. We need more transmission, full stop,” said Kat Burnham, the state lead for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for Advanced Energy United, an advocacy group for all aspects of advanced energy.
If the Senate does not force changes, Burnham said it “would make it effectively impossible for any onshore or offshore project not already under construction to qualify for these long-standing, bipartisan tax credits.”
That could mean serious trouble for a Massachusetts and Rhode Island project called SouthCoast Wind, which doesn’t have contracts in place yet. The Massachusetts Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs declined to comment on the project’s future. SouthCoast did not respond to an email.
Now even Power Up New England, the transmission/interconnection component for future offshore wind may be in trouble. In March that project appeared as the biggest single item on a “hit list” seen by some news publications of proposed project cuts to the Department of Energy’s Grid Deployment Office.
On May 15, Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced the department was requesting additional information from 179 Biden administration awards it had been reviewing. It’s not clear which awards were targeted.
The Department of Energy did not respond to specific questions to clarify the status of Power Up New England. It provided an email statement that said in part: “The Department is conducting a department-wide review to ensure all activities follow the law, comply with applicable court orders and align with the Trump administration’s priorities.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs in Massachusetts, the lead state on Power Up, declined to comment on the recent development specifically, referring to an earlier emailed statement.
Should states step up?
United’s Burnham agreed there’s a lot of uncertainty now at the federal level, with tariffs and with changes in FERC leadership.
“This is not our first time facing uncertainty, but the pressure is absolutely there,” she said. “That’s why I think we are looking to state collaboration and regional coordination, because we are not getting the regulatory certainty or the market certainty that we rely on from the federal level.”
The mantra that states need to step up has become widespread among advocates, but the unanswered question is where will the money come from if federal funds dry up, or worse, if existing funds are rescinded? And how can projects even attract investors in an economic climate that could be headed for recession?
Read the full article here.