Google's initial comments on USDOE's letter and ANOPR to @FERC on large load interconnection: elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filel… OpenAI comments: elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filel…

Very significant: @SPPorg just unveiled a major new initiative to lead on hyperscale load integration w/ accelerated speed to power for flexible loads, fast-tracked for implementation within months.🧵 SPP proposes two new quasi-firm options for large loads to connect quickly, w/out waiting years for new gen or transmission to be built:

1) CHILLS = Conditional High Impact Large Load Service

2) HILLGA = High Impact Large Load Generation Assessment

🧵On "parasitic" solar, two things can be true:
1) PV integration costs are real
2) They’re far lower than PV critics suggest
One of the most credible studies on the topic, directed by NC & SC PUCs for @DukeEnergy, identified cost of managing solar variability at ~$2/MWh. These "parasitic" costs arise primarily from the need to hold load-following reserves - fast-ramping units kept online or on standby in case solar output drops unexpectedly. (2/5)

Today I testified to the US House Energy & Commerce Energy Subcommittee for its hearing on "Scaling for Growth," alongside PJM, Southern Company & the Electric Coops. A few things that stood out to me 🧵(1/6) 1. The AP1000 got an unexpected boost when Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA-1) expressed clear support for Southern Company building ~2 more units, and skepticism about SMRs

1/ 🚨New study alert!🚨
My DukeU colleagues and I just released a 1st-of-kind study on how the US grid could integrate up to 100 gigawatts of data centers w/out major new infrastructure, provided modest load flexibility (0.5%/yr). AI load growth can be managed faster, cheaper, & cleaner. 🧵 2/ The challenge: Data centers are projected to contribute up to 44% of US load growth through late 2020s. But building power plants & transmission takes time, w/ some large loads encountering interconnection delay >5-7yrs. Can we integrate them sooner? Yes—if they can adjust usage at key times.

Tips for joining the other place 🧵:
1) Update your profile asap
2) Follow/recruit all you know
3) Follow starter packs & create one
4) Transition your twitter network
5) Engage content & share insights
6) Be patient and give it a few weeks
(each expanded below) 1) Update your profile asap: Add your photo/bio/display name immediately so people know who you are. Headshot is most inviting and assures people you're real.
2) Follow/recruit all you know: Your colleagues won't know you've joined unless you follow them; the more you recruit, the more community you'll have.

I’ve no idea if this is the best possible permitting reform deal (& respect efforts & views of many), but at minimum you might hope to see some journalism on how we landed a bill that doesn’t address the biggest obstacles for vast majority of new generators. Crickets though. 1/6

https://twitter.com/tylerhnorris/status/1816670508479312246

As one example, Heatmap’s latest coverage doesn’t give any mention of this dynamic and states that energy wonks love the deal. (Not trying to pick on Heatmap alone.) 2/6 heatmap.news/politics/permi…

To illustrate why it's unfortunate that permitting reform doesn't address interconnection: a new cluster study by Santee Cooper assigns $3bn in upgrades to 3GW of PV (>$1000/kW) - an astronomical figure that could kill most of the cluster. 1/5 This isn't an isolated case; we're seeing very high interconnection study costs like this pop up in other jurisdictions too (albeit none as extreme as this new Santee study, to my awareness). 2/5

https://x.com/tylerhnorris/status/1790806336965591164

EPA's new power plant rules should send utilities with gas-heavy resource plans back to drawing board, but at least one major utility has suggested it may propose even more gas in response. You read that right.🧵(1/7) Context: Duke Energy is currently proposing more large new "baseload" gas plants than any known US utility, at nearly 7 gigawatts, which they're hoping to run far above 40% capacity factor threshold for such plants in EPA's new rule, at least into late 2030s. (2/7)

Excellent new investigation on proposed gas power expansion by US utilities to support mega-customers, by @jeffsaintjohn @CanaryMediaInc. It covers a lot of ground. Here are a few highlights. (🧵1/8) canarymedia.com/articles/utili…
The proposed gas is not primarily "peaker" plants (CTs), as some have claimed. It's primarily combined cycle plants, designed to run much more often - most clearly illustrated by Duke, but also Dominion/Santee, which are pushing to fast-track a 2GW combined cycle plant. (2/8)

Is there a US "grid crisis" at hand due to data center & factory expansion? No. But doomsday thinking appears to be spreading and increasing the risk of poor decision-making.🧵(1/8) There's ample existing generation capacity to meet energy demand from new C&I load over medium-term. Why? As @JigarShahDC noted, "we have low asset utilization of assets we already paid for... Because entire system is built for peak demand." (2/8)

https://twitter.com/JigarShahDC/status/1763935560781996118

I can’t recall the last time I was so concerned about the US energy trajectory, as major utilities maneuver for mass gas capacity expansion in the face of load growth. Unless course is changed, US 2030/2035 GHG goals are effectively dead. (1/10) In SC, state legislators are declaring a “crisis point” for the grid, and Dominion & Santee are maneuvering to pass legislation to override the PSC and fast-track a 2,000 MW gas plant. (2/10) postandcourier.com/opinion/commen…

An early consensus appears to be emerging on next steps for US interconnection reform. The central dilemma is that existing US processes tilt heavily toward "deliverability," which results in inefficient use of grid. @UtilityDive explores today (🧵1/9): utilitydive.com/news/connect-a…
The basic realization is that grids with high renewable penetration will curtail and/or store significant portion of RE, and insisting most RE be 100% "deliverable" is expensive & inefficient - as USDOE suggests in new interconnection roadmap (2/9): energy.gov/sites/default/…

On IRA anniversary, one of top 3 US utilities just released new resource plan recommending 5yr delay of interim decarb mandate (from 2030 to '35, P1 v P3 below), noting higher load & claiming it's cheaper & less risky to wait for SMRs than interconnect more PV. (1/4) NC established 2030 decarb mandate <2yrs ago. Duke now states it “requires unattainable level of resource additions & associated transmission,” whereas P3 (w/ 600MW SMRs by 2035) carries “lower execution risks & lower costs” (p16 of exec summary: ). (2/4)duke-energy.com/our-company/ab…