Thread by @TabakGabe

🧵Before everyone leaves Twitter for a (safe, virus-free) Thanksgiving, here’s a few thoughts on why a CRITICAL statute for energy & climate has been a🦃 – and why it shouldn’t be that way in a Biden admin.
1/

Jump back in time to 2005.

Star Wars Ep. III – Revenge of the Sith was #1 at the box office.

The Hold Steady dropped Separation Sunday. (source of your audio for this 🧵) -

And Congress passed EPAct 2005 - congress.gov/bill/109th-con…

2/

Now, tucked away among all the provisions (efficiency standards! Strategic petroleum reserve! CAFÉ standards!) is Section 1221 – “Siting of Interstate Electric Transmission Facilities”. You RN:

It's a bit of Rube Goldberg contraption, but the main steps: DOE studies transmission congestion. DOE can designate “national interest electric transmission corridors.” If a state delays approval, FERC can issue permits – and use federal eminent domain. 4/

Why does this matter? Well, building transmission is HARD. There’s federal siting authority for gas pipelines, but not for electricity – which is why we build so much pipeline. nytimes.com/2020/07/08/cli…
5/

And we NEED electric transmission to build out renewables and meet climate targets. See @CleanEnergyGrid cleanenergygrid.org/new-report-ace…
& @NREL - nrel.gov/analysis/seams…
6/

So, of course in the past 15 years, 1221 has led to lots of transmission lines, thanks to the federal "backstop," right?

7/

Nothing. Nada. Why?

DOE designated two corridors – one in the Northeast, and one in California. And when I say “the Northeast” I mean everything from NOVA to upstate NY.

8/

And CA – basically San Diego to LA.

9/

As you can imagine, these were not hits with locals, or their congressional representatives. But DOE & FERC soldiered on, into Federal court.

10/

First the CA corridor was thrown out, in California Wilderness Coalition, for inadequate consultation with affected states. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…

11/

And then the Northeast corridor – on the basis that a state saying “no” to a project isn’t the same as “withholding approval” ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Publi…

For what it’s worth, both cases were split decisions (2-1). And the Solicitor General argued that FERC’s interpretation in Piedmont was right. justice.gov/osg/brief/edis…

Many agencies only treat a loss as binding in the circuit where the case was decided.

13/

Nothing in either decision prevented the use of 1221 again. And the need for more transmission has only become more apparent in the past 13 years.

But instead:

14/

Since Piedmont, 3 congestion studies from DOE – and zero corridors. Today, @AWEA filed comments on the most recent congestion study.

As more renewables come onto the grid, congestion is going to get worse.

2019 prices vs est. 2024 in MISO. And this is off-peak.

15/

The Biden administration will need to use all of the tools it has in existing law to make real progress on energy & climate.

16/

Because renewables are reshaping the grid, and we need the infrastructure to get it right. Projects are being withdrawn because of insufficient transmission. @CleanFERC mapped it.

arcgis.com/home/webmap/vi…

17/

Transmission corridors aren’t the only solution – but it’s time to dust them off, and bring them into the clean energy era. DOE should be ready to look at where congestion WILL be, not just where it it’s been historically.

18/

So, yup – back to the Hold Steady. The song’s from 2005, but the sentiment is for 2021.



19/19

Bonus tweet for anyone who read this far - check out this excellent forthcoming piece from @azevin, @JMGinNYC, et al - detailing how we can build more transmission with existing law. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Basically this thread with actual reasoning and no GIFs.

Now for the more wonky, less GIF-y postscript - this thread was tied to DOE's 2020 congestion study. energy.gov/sites/prod/fil…

Public comments went in on Monday, and are now available.

Here's @AWEA's - energy.gov/sites/prod/fil…

We touch on a number of ways that DOE should be ready to improve upon its congestion analysis.

While our comments don't recommend a specific transmission corridor, we want DOE to be ready to appropriately evaluate congestion when project-specific applications come up.

A partial list of how to think about 1221 moving forward:

First, DOE mostly looked at historic congestion - but it needs to be able to consider future congestion, in light of rapidly-growing interconnection backlogs for renewables.

Second, looking at $ spent on transmission doesn't really provide useful information.

Third, congestion and constraints aren't just defined by existing paths - but should be understood to include transactions that aren't able to happen.

Fourth, factors that may have reduced congestion historically - such as switching from coal to gas - are not necessarily reflective of where the grid is headed.

And finally (for now), the statutory factors of 1221 give DOE substantial latitude - including heading off future problems - that it should be ready to use in evaluating congestion and constraints, and designating corridors if needed.