AD21-13, Transcript of Conference

20210722-4000_Transcript - 060121.PDF

FERC-1004, One-Time Reports on Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessments (NOPR in RM22-16 & AD21-13)

AD21-13, Transcript of Conference

OMB: 1902-0323

Document [pdf]
Download: pdf | pdf
1

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

3
4

Technical Conference

5

to Discuss Climate Change,

6

Extreme Weather, & Electric

7

System Reliability

Docket No: AD21-13-000

8
9
10

TECHNICAL CONFERENCE

11

Via WebEx

12

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

13

888 1st Street NE

14

Washington, DC 20426

15

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

16

1:00 p.m.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2

1

Welcome and Opening Remarks

2
3

Introductory Presentation - More Frequent and Expensive

4

Extreme Weather Events

5

Adam Smith, Applied Climatologist, National Oceanic and

6

Atmospheric Administration

7
8

Panel 1:

Planning for a Future that Diverges from

9

Historical Trends.

10

Romany Webb, Associate Research Scholar/Senior Fellow at the

11

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University Law

12

School

13

Derek Stenclik, President, Telos Energy, Inc.

14

Susanne DesRoches, Deputy Director of Infrastructure and

15

Energy, New York City Mayor's Offices of Resiliency and

16

Sustainability.

17

Lisa Barton, Executive Vice President/Chief Operating

18

Officer, American Electric Power

19

Judy Chang, Undersecretary of Energy, Massachusetts

20

Jessica Hogle, Federal Affairs/Chief Sustainability Officer,

21

Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation

22

David Easterling, Ph.D., Director, National Climate

23

Assessment Technical Support Unit NOAA's National Centers

24

for Environmental Information.

25

3

1

Panel 2:

Best Practices for Long-Term Planning

2

Assessing and Mitigating the Risk of Climate Change and

3

Extreme Weather Events

4
5

Judith Curry, President, Climate Forecast Applications

6

Network

7

Neal Millar, Vice President Transmission Planning and

8

Infrastructure Development at the California ISO

9

Mark Lauby, Senior Vice President/Chief Engineer, NERC

10

Devin Hartman, Director of Energy and Environmental Police,

11

R Street Institute

12

Alison Silverstein, Independent Consultant, Alison

13

Silverstein Consulting

14

Richard Tabors, President.

15

Frederick Heinle, Assistant People's Counsel, Office of the

16

People's Counsel for the District of Columbia.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Tabors Caramanis Rudkevich

4

1
2

P R O C E E D I N G S
(1:00 p.m.)

3

MR. AMERKHAIL:

Welcome my name is Rahim

4

Amerkhail, and I'm from the Commission's Office of Energy

5

Policy and Innovation.

6

technical conference to discuss climate change, extreme

7

weather and electric system reliability.,

8
9

We are happy to welcome you to this

Before we begin with opening remarks I will
outline some logistics for the conference.

This conference

10

will take place over two afternoons from approximately 1:00

11

p.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time each day.

12

opening presentation and two panels today, followed by three

13

panels tomorrow afternoon.

14

We will have an

We will also have breaks in between the panels.

15

Only the Commissioners, panelists and a small group of

16

Commission staff will have the ability to speak today.

17

conference is being webcast and transcribed, and I believe

18

the webcast will be archived for those who need to watch it

19

later.

20

This

The purpose of this conference is to discuss

21

issues surrounding the threat to electric system reliability

22

posed by climate change and extreme weather events.

23

not intend to discuss specific details of any pending,

24

contested proceedings before the Commission whether they're

25

listed on the supplemental notice issued on May 27th or not.

We do

5

1

And we ask that all participants similarly

2

refrain from such discussion.

3

kinds of discussions, my colleague Michael Haddad from the

4

Office of General Counsel will interrupt the discussion to

5

ask the speaker to avoid that topic.

6

matters out of the way I will now turn it over to Chairman

7

Glick for his opening remarks.

8

Welcome and Opening Remarks

9
10

CHAIRMAN GLICK:

If anyone engages in these

With those initial

Mr. Chairman?

Thank you very much Rahim can

you hear me?

11

MR. AMERKHAIL:

12

CHAIRMAN GLICK:

Yes.
Great, great, I appreciate it.

13

So thank you and also thanks to the team for putting

14

together this technical conference for the next two days.

15

think it's going to be very interesting.

16

thank the panelists for being willing to participate in the

17

conference over the next two days and for taking the time to

18

do so.

19

helpful to us.

20

I

I also want to

We really appreciate your participation, it's very

You know I think if you look at the last couple

21

summer and winter reliability assessments that the

22

Commission staff puts out on occasion.

23

to do is look at those and all you have to do is read those,

24

and you will all understand how important weather is --

25

extreme weather is to grid reliability.

I think all you have

6

1

Certainly, it's something that we pay a lot of

2

attention to, but I think the courts suggest that it has

3

always been important, but even more important as of late.

4

Climate change is a real phenomenon and I think the extreme

5

weather that we see around the country, whether it be

6

drought and wildfires in the west, extreme instances of heat

7

or extreme cold waves that occur, floods, hurricanes, more

8

ferocious hurricanes than we've seen before and greater

9

numbers as well.

10

There's clearly something going on, and I think

11

most scientists would suggest that certainly climate change.

12

But from our perspective we need to figure out what that all

13

means for the grid.

14

most cases people would assume that you would have the 100

15

year flood, or the 100 year this or that, and all these

16

events are now taking place once ever few years, it's no

17

longer once every 100 years.

18

And I think you know we used to have in

And I think we need to figure out on a going

19

forward basis what that means again for the grid reliability

20

and act accordingly.

21

Texas most recently, but we've seen it elsewhere before,

22

grid reliability and access to electricity is not just the

23

incident of convenience that when the lights go out you know

24

we're inconvenienced for a couple hours.

25

And you know as I think as we saw in

Sometimes it's a loss worse than that as we saw

7

1

in Texas most recently.

2

and death on some occasions, so we have a duty, a solemn

3

duty to try to ensure reasonable power system, ensure

4

reliability, and take a look at these instances and try to

5

figure out what's to do next.

6

days -- this afternoon and then tomorrow afternoon the

7

discussion that is going to take place is very important

8

from FERC's perspective.

9

It literally is a matter of life

And I think that the next two

We need to figure out from our perspective is

10

there anything to do from reliability rules for the ways in

11

which we regulate jurisdictional utilities.

12

better address the fact that utilities need to plan for

13

these extreme weather conditions on a more frequent basis

14

and how to play for them both in the planning perspective,

15

but also an operational perspective.

16

How do we

And I'm looking forward to the discussion today

17

and tomorrow because I think that's going to be extremely

18

helpful.

19

it.

20

afternoon, but other than that I'll most certainly be

21

listening and participating, and again look forward to what

22

I think is going to be a very helpful discussion over the

23

next couple days, so thanks very much Rahim.

24
25

I will be, and I plan to listen to almost all of

I think I might have a conflict later tomorrow

MR. AMERKHAIL:

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I

believe Commissioners Clements and Christie also want to say

8

1

a few words.

2

Let's start with Commissioner Clements please.

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Thank you Rahim and thank

3

you Chairman Glick.

4

work you've done, along with the team to get this important

5

technical conference up and going.

6

Appreciate Rahim, especially all the

The Chairman just spoke to the kinds of threats

7

and the seriousness of the changing threat that climate

8

change is imposing in terms of increasing extreme weather.

9

So to combat these threats we need to move beyond

10

traditional, you know, best practice for planning from the

11

past, and deliberately think about and plan for these bigger

12

challenges.

13

through an energy transition and a mix of resources that

14

grid operator will call upon to meet these challenges.

15

changing.

16

And we just do so recognizing that we're going

It's

You know that economics, public policy, and

17

customer preferences are causing a proliferation of wind and

18

solar resources, and now more recently energy storage

19

technologies and offshore wind have begun to gain a market

20

foothold, and are certainly poised for significant future

21

growth.

22

It's important for me to remember that our job is

23

not to halt progress towards a cheaper, more flexible and

24

more resilient electricity system, but to protect customers

25

and ensure reliability along the way.

Success requires

9

1

smart planning operations and reliability regimes that

2

embrace this reality of extreme weather risk.

3

Certainly states and utilities and regions have

4

started to make progress already on this front.

5

the first time that the Commission has devoted a technical

6

conference to examining specifically how the system must

7

respond to climate change.

8

hearing from all of you on these issues of planning

9

operations, recovery and restoration practices, and how

10
11

Today is

So I'm looking forward to

they can be improved to better address this threat.
And I commend you Chairman Glick, and the team

12

for putting this together.

13

That's it for me.

14

Introductory Presentation - More Frequent and Expensive

15

Extreme Weather Events

16

MR. AMERKHAIL:

We appreciate all the work.

Thank you Commissioner Clements.

17

Commissioner Christie are you on?

18

Christie on the Webex yet, so perhaps we'll have a chance to

19

hear from him later.

20

Chairman and Commissioners.

21

I don't see Commissioner

So at this point thank you Mr.

I will now hand it over to Adam Smith, an applied

22

climatologist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

23

Administration who will help us set the state with respect

24

to the kinds of change and extreme weather problems our

25

panels will be discussing for the next two afternoons.

Mr.

10

1

Smith?

2

MR. SMITH:

Thank you.

Thank you for having us

3

today, and I think that this will be a very fruitful

4

discussion.

5

thank you.

6

I'm going to go to a macro to micro to back to a macro

7

perspective to over how the extremes have affected the

8

United States over the last 41 years.

9

I'm waiting for the slides.
All right.

All right great

So there's a lot to unpack here and

Try to give a better perspective over the

10

disaster costs, over space and time, looking at some other

11

metrics and charts and tools that you can look at yourself.

12

We try to be very transparent with this information.

13

slide please.

14

So here's a brief outline.

Next

First I'd like to

15

offer context for measuring disaster impact, then we'll get

16

into the public and private sector data versus the years,

17

what we're measuring, also what we're not measuring.

18

third and fourth sections are really the meat of the

19

presentation regarding the 2020 U.S. disaster events that

20

happened across the United States, put those into historical

21

context, and also finish up with different cost comparisons

22

over space and time and looking at different new tools that

23

we have to unpack this data, to get better context.

24

slide please.

25

The

Next

So NOAA's National Centers for Environmental

11

1

Information since 1950 has really been the mission

2

scorekeeper regarding trends and anomalies for various

3

weather and climate events.

4

different products and services.

5

Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disaster project which

6

goes from 1980 to present.

7

And we have hundreds of
One of those is the U.S.

It's a quarterly project.

And so a billion dollars for an event is an

8

arbitrary threshold, but it just so happens to be a useful

9

threshold.

You can see at the bottom of the slide that the

10

first 20 years of the period of record these billion dollar

11

weather and climate events were about 75 percent of the full

12

cost distribution for all weather and climate related events

13

at all scales and all loss levels.

14

And you can see how that has increased to in fact

15

a bit more than 85 percent of the full distribution from

16

1980 through 2020.

17

direct losses.

18

the wildfires out west and the hurricanes in the Gulf and

19

the Atlantic states have further skewed this distribution,

20

but we'll get into that further.

21

1.9 of 2.2 trillion dollars in total

And certainly, over the last several years

Next slide please.

So certainly there are several different ways you

22

can measure the disastrous impact.

First if you see the

23

left part of the slide it shows many of the different

24

hazards that we focus on -- tornadoes, wildfires, inland

25

floods, droughts, heatwaves, winter storms, hurricanes.

12

1

We do not currently work on geophysical events

2

such as earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

3

center in the right portion of the slide, the green box is

4

really highlighting where the best public and private sector

5

data for analyzing disasters currently exists.

6

and blue boxes are where the data is more heterogeneous over

7

space and time, and therefore we don't really bring it into

8

this product because of the inconsistency of the data.

9

Now in the

The purple

So I'll unpack that a bit further in the next few

10

slides.

11

to capture all of this data it requires a broad array of

12

public and private sector data sources and partners.

13

table shows the intersection from the seven different

14

hazards as part of this billion dollar disaster portfolio at

15

the top of the table which intersect with our primary data

16

providers in the left column.

17

Next slide.

And one more please.

So it's really

The

The property claim service is really a gold

18

standard for property insurance in the United States.

19

FEMA's presence with disaster declaration data, the national

20

flood insurance program data, USCA's crop insurance data,

21

also the national interagency fire center, the Energy

22

Information Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of

23

Engineers, and state agencies provide valuable context,

24

ex-post after disasters.

25

And so you can see there's a lot of variability

13

1

on the data providers versus the hazards, but I think at the

2

bottom it's really the takeaway.

What we're trying to

3

capture are total direct losses.

That would be the insured

4

and uninsured losses for a variety of assets you see listed,

5

the damage to residential, commercial buildings, government

6

buildings, the contents of those buildings.

7

Time element losses such as business

8

interruption, damage to vehicles, boats, offshore energy

9

platforms like in the Gulf of Mexico that are challenged by

10

hurricanes.

11

let's see there we go.

12

account for things like natural capital losses that are

13

outside of the marketplace.

14

Also crops, livestock, commercial timber and
But let me also highlight we do not

Also, mental and physical healthcare costs, and

15

also all the downstream supply chain ripple effects outside

16

of a hazard region, we don't capture those either.

17

suffice to say that this is a conservative but solid

18

estimate for the direct total losses that we can measure,

19

but certainly there are variables that we cannot.

20

slide please.

21

All right one more slide please.

So

Next

So now getting

22

into what happened last year.

Of course COVID certainly was

23

unfortunately the story of 2020, but it wasn't for COVID I

24

think we'd be more talking about the extreme weather that

25

happened from coast to coast.

The wildfires out west --

14

1

California, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado, all had

2

historical wildfire seasons.

3

Of course the Gulf Coast, you can see a record

4

number of hurricanes.

Only 12 tropical cyclones hit the

5

United States which was a record, and 7 of the 12 were

6

actually billion dollar hurricane events, which was also a

7

record.

Unfortunately, Louisiana was hit by 5 of those.

8

But and we also can't forget the very

9

historically strong duration that raped the upper Midwest.

10

That was an 11 billion dollar event impacting the

11

agriculture, utilities and homes, businesses, livelihoods,

12

but the most-costly event of the year was Hurricane Laura,

13

which was a strong category 4 that hit earlier in the

14

Hurricane season.

15

That was a 19 billion dollar event.

So from these 22 events which was a record

16

breaking the previous annual record of 16 events set in 2011

17

and 2017, so 2020 was really an outlier, but it was the

18

hurricane and the wildfire seasons that I think were the

19

historical takeaways from last year, next slide please.

20

So this is a pretty loaded chart, and it

21

essentially reflects the aggregate exposure values at risk,

22

vulnerability, where we build, how we build, and of course

23

the effects of climate change on some of these extremes.

24

And you can see each of the last 41 years the bar represents

25

the count of these billion dollar disasters somewhere in the

15

1

United States.

2

as well.

3

You can also look at this at a state level

And they're collocated by hazard type which you

4

can see at the top.

5

is that so 2015 through 2020 was the sixth consecutive year

6

that we've had at least 10 separate billion dollar disaster

7

events, but last year more than doubled that recent

8

standard.

9

But what I would also like to highlight

But I think more telling is the costs, so the

10

five year average cost which is the black line, is 120

11

billion dollars in just total direct losses in the United

12

States which is a record.

13

that's in excess of 600 billion dollars, and from the

14

impacts from these extreme events.

15

So over the last five years

I'd also like to highlight that some of the

16

outlier years, of course you see let's go back one slide

17

please, the 2017 was the most-costly year.

18

the second most-costly, followed by 2012, but last year was

19

the fourth most costly year, and we'll look at that in a

20

little bit more detail.

21

2005 would be

Next slide please.

So here are different ways to look at the data.

22

Now this is a cumulative aggregate of the frequency of these

23

billion dollar disaster events, each of the last 41 years.

24

The black line is again the 41 year inflation adjusted

25

average number of events per year.

I should say that all

16

1

the dollar figures in this plot today are inflationary

2

adjusted to present day dollars.

3

The red line would again be the outlier for the

4

year 2020, you know, head and shoulders above the other

5

years.

6

years that have been quite high on the distribution.

7

this chart right here actually is perhaps more useful.

8

shows the cost distribution, the previous chart was the

9

frequency, this is the cost distribution.

But as you can see we've had a number of recent

10

And
It

The 41 year inflation adjusted cost averages 46.5

11

billion, and the black line again you see the red line is

12

2020, it was in fourth place just behind 2012, 2005 and of

13

course 2017 when we had Harvey, Irma, and Maria in addition

14

to western wildfires.

15

billion.

16

Those costs were in excessive of 300

I'd like to highlight two things.

One would be

17

the distribution of the gray lines between 10 and 40

18

billion, and of course the outlier years above it.

19

commonality with the outlier years at the top of the

20

distribution are large hurricanes hitting large metropolitan

21

regions -- Harvey, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Irma, you name it.

22

And the

So certainly the exposure we have on the coast

23

from hurricanes is the highest cost threat for these weather

24

and climate extremes for this product.

25

All right one more slide.

Next slide please.
So here over the last

17

1

41 years from January 1980 through March 2020, we've had 291

2

separate billion dollar weather or climate related events.

3

And so, the cumulative costs you could see at the bottom is

4

1.9 trillion.

5

takeaways.

6

So what I have circled here are a few

One, it does not surprise people that tropical

7

cyclones, which are of course hurricanes and tropical

8

storms, make up the lion's share of the losses, a little bit

9

more than 1 trillion dollars.

This is from 52 hurricane, or

10

strong tropical storm events.

And the average cost is 19.4

11

billion per event.

12

It does surprise people that drought and

13

heatwaves have a secondarily high cost of 261 billion, so

14

one quarter of one trillion.

15

being overshadowed is what's happening with wildfires.

16

see wildfires is 100.3 billion dollars in total direct

17

losses.

18

the last four years due to catastrophic wildfires across the

19

west in 2017, 2018 and 2020.

20

But I think what's kind of
You

It is notable that that has effectively doubled in

Unfortunately, this year is looking like another

21

challenging wildfire year.

So wildfire costs are increasing

22

proportionately the fastest.

23

please, yes.

24

partitioned by decade.

25

decade and you can see the large jump over the 2000's decade

Next slide please, back one

So this is the same data except its
What I have circled is the 2010

18

1

from 63 billion dollar disasters to basically doubled to

2

123.

3

And also the cost went from 527 billion to 825

4

billion.

And of course exposure, vulnerability, and climate

5

change are all drivers for these increases in losses with

6

you know regional variations.

7

you know it comes down back to how vulnerable are we and

8

that's you know, a very challenging question to examine.

9

But I think the takeaway is

So these numbers continue to rise for a variety

10

of reasons as I mentioned, so let's look at that a bit

11

further.

12

footprint of these billion dollar disasters really is

13

ubiquitous.

14

over the last 41 years it shows the billion dollar aggregate

15

footprint of these different hazards.

Next slide please.

16

So this shows that the spatial

No matter where you live in the United States

So the top left drought and heatwave is

17

everywhere.

18

more recently the west have really had their fair share of

19

drought and heatwave impacts.

20

center, you see it's more to the east, and a lot of that is

21

exposure with large population centers in the northeast, and

22

nor'easter events that create hail -- excuse me, snow, ice,

23

wind and storm surge damage, so that's an exposure map

24

right there.

25

The south, the central, the southeastern, but

Winter storms in the top

Tropical cyclones really from Texas to New

19

1

England, and even well inland as they become extra tropical

2

and rain themselves out, you know the hazard is prominent

3

there.

4

non-tropical flooding just from urban flooding or river

5

basin flooding, and you see as the water flows to the

6

tributaries into the main river basins, Texas, Louisiana,

7

Arkansas, the deep south really gets a lot of the flooding

8

impacts.

9

Bottom left flooding -- this would be non-hurricane,

Bottom center wildfires.

Again, mostly a western

10

phenomenon, also Alaska and the southeast have impacts as

11

well, but California, Oregon, other western states are

12

really the most challenged with wildfire.

13

local storms, also on the bottom right fairly ubiquitous,

14

but mostly east of the Rockies due to geography and the way

15

that weather patterns set up.

16

And then severe

Next slide please.

So if you take all of those previous maps I just

17

spoke of and put them together, this is a map you have the

18

total aggregate.

19

the last 41 years.

20

Texas has a spatial vice being the largest state, or one of

21

the large population states with a large economy, so it has

22

a lot at risk.

23

The total frequency of these events over
And Texas leads the way.

But of course

Let's go one more slide please.

But this slide is more telling because it's

24

looking at the cumulative cost frequency over the last 41

25

years.

Again, Texas leads the way about 300 billion dollars

20

1

in total direct losses, and it gets all the hazards that we

2

focus on.

3

most of those are hurricane impacts that you would expect.

4

Florida would be second at about 240 billion,

And finally, in Louisiana it's third at about 220

5

billion, but it has a much smaller economy and population

6

than either Texas or Florida, so as highest relative impacts

7

to these events.

8

Islands are impacted by hurricanes, which we also capture.

9

But really, you can see much of the country, particularly

Also, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

10

the central and eastern part plus California are really

11

impacted by these events in true dollars and cents.

12

more slide please.

13

And we just saw this last year.

One

So 2020, this is

14

a map showing the 2020 disaster costs with respect to each

15

state's economy size, their GSP, or GDP.

16

Louisiana led the way at about 7.5 to 10 percent of its

17

state's economy, that was the size of the damages from the

18

hurricanes that happened last year.

19

from the ratio impacts in many central states from severe

20

conductive storm impacts from tornadoes, hails and straight

21

line thunderstorm wind damage.

22

So you can see

Also Iowa, it pops out

But you can look at this tool in a variety of

23

ways.

We're just scratching the surface with this

24

presentation, but I think this is a valuable metric we look

25

at.

One more slide please.

And this is just a snapshot

21

1

showing that these extremes of course are seasonal.

2

In the springtime we expect severe storm events,

3

and inland flooding events in the blue and the green there,

4

as opposed to the fall months where it's more tropical

5

cyclone, wildfire and drought events that are causing the

6

most damage as we've seen every year in the last several

7

years.

8
9

It just plays out almost like a record.
And you can go look at this for your own state.

But let's go one more slide please.

One of the more I think

10

interesting areas to look at is this concept of cascading or

11

compound hazards, basically when extreme events happen in a

12

small space time window.

13

separate billion dollar disaster events for the United

14

States over the last four decades, and how -- what's the

15

statistical frequency for them to happen in the same month

16

in the same geography.

And so this is looking at the 291

17

And again you can see how the spring and the fall

18

months pop out with the highest risk for compound frequency,

19

and again Louisiana is a great example.

20

five tropical cyclones last year.

21

important is it increases cost recovery time, and it just

22

lengthens, delays the recovery process and increased demand

23

surge for materials and for labor and we see that in these

24

March - June disasters, or these compound disasters.

25

They were hit by

So the reason that's

And finally, I'd like to highlight what was noted

22

1

in the fourth national climate assessment a few years back,

2

"The physical and socioeconomic impacts of compound extreme

3

events such as simultaneous heat and drought, wildfires

4

associated with hot and dry conditions or flooding

5

associated with hot or high precipitation on top of a water

6

logged ground, the impacts are greater than the sum of its

7

parts."

8
9

And finally, here is the website for the maps and
the charts and tools I showed you and our core review on

10

climate.gov regarding the billion dollar disasters last

11

year, and my email and some great literature.

12

thank you.

13

MR. AMERKHAIL:

And with that

Thank you very much Mr. Smith.

14

That was very helpful and quite sobering as your teams work

15

and your presentation demonstrate the electric industry

16

faces significant weather-related challenges ahead.

17

Before I turn it over to our moderators for Panel

18

1, I see that Commissioner Christie has arrived.

19

Commissioner Christie would you like to make any opening

20

remarks?

21

COMMISSIONER CHRISTIE:

Thanks Rahim, and I would

22

just say I've been having technical issues and not fully

23

resolved yet, so I will not say much.

24

all the panelists that put a lot of work into this.

25

want to thank all the staff that put a lot of work into

But I want to thank
And I

23

1

this, and with that I will sign off and listen and hopefully

2

get my technical issues resolved before too long, so thank

3

you very much.

4

Panel 1:

5

Historical Trends.

6

Planning for a Future that Diverges from

MR. AMERKHAIL:

Thank you Commissioner.

I will

7

now turn it over to our moderators for the first panel

8

entitled, "Planning for a Future that Diverges from

9

Historical Trends," so we can start exploring potential

10

responses to the challenges that Mr. Smith and others have

11

raised.

12

Louise?
MS. NUTTER:

Hello.

I'm Louise Nutter from the

13

Office of Electric Reliability, and along with my colleague

14

Ena Agbedia, also from the Office of Electric Reliability, I

15

will be moderating this panel.

16

Our first panel today will explore the ways in

17

which planning inputs and practices, including those used in

18

resource adequacy planning, transmission planning,

19

integrated resource planning, and asset development and

20

management, should evolve to achieve outcomes that reflect

21

consumer needs for reliable electricity in the face of

22

patterns of climate change and extreme weather events that

23

diverges from historical trends.

24

We will be foregoing opening remarks for this

25

panel, and will move directly into a question and answer

24

1

session.

2

please use Webex raise hand function.

3

are having any issues with the raise hand function, please

4

turn on your microphone and indicate that you would like to

5

respond.

6

If a panelist would like to answer a question,
Alternatively, if you

I will call on panelists that indicate that they

7

would like to answer in turn.

8

microphone on and respond to the question.

9

completed your answer please turn off the microphone, lower

10
11

At that time please turn your
When you've

your virtual hand in Webex.
I'd like to start by welcoming our panelists.

We

12

have Romany Webb, Associate Research Scholar/Senior Fellow

13

at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia

14

University Law School;

15

Derek Stenclik, Founding Partner Telos Energy;

16

Susanne DesRoches, Deputy Director of Infrastructure and

17

Energy of the New York City Mayor's Office of Resiliency and

18

Sustainability;

19

Chief Operating Officer, American Electric Power;

20

Lisa Barton, Executive Vice President,

Judy Chang, Undersecretary of Energy with the

21

State of Massachusetts;

Jessica Hogle, Federal

22

Affairs/Chief Sustainability Officer at PG&E and Doctor

23

David Easterling, Director of National Climate Assessment

24

Technical Support Unit.

25

colleague Ena to introduce the first question.

And now I will turn it over to my

25

1

MR. AGBEDIA:

Thank you Louise.

So panelists,

2

the first question we are going to address today, with

3

respect to typical inputs to planning, such as expected

4

future loads, weather, temperature, et cetera, how can such

5

futures-based inputs be projected more accurately (or

6

usefully) than simply extending historical trends forward?

7
8

I'll turn this first question to Mr. Stenclik
please.

9

MR. STENCLIK:

Yeah sure, so I can take a first

10

stab at that.

11

about evaluating climate change in the electric power

12

sector, you know, the first thing is it's not adequate just

13

to introduce a warming trend, because I think normal

14

warming, or even if it's not normal, that warming trend is

15

not what's going to catch the electric power system

16

off-guard.

17

One thing I think is critical when you think

Really what the power system is going to be most

18

concerned with is the correlated events that come from that,

19

whether it's multiple days of extreme heat that occur back

20

to back to back, if it's weather events that occur outside

21

of our normal risk periods, I think that's key when we think

22

about electric power system reliability historically across

23

most of North America we've been focused predominantly on

24

hot summer afternoons.

25

And I think for all the system planners out

26

1

there, it's going to be really critical to widen that view,

2

and say it's not just that afternoon summer peak that's

3

going to be critical anymore, we need to start looking more

4

at what anomalous weather that might not be as hot or as

5

humid as the summer peak, but occurs in a time period that

6

the power system wasn't necessarily designed to meet the

7

same way it was for the summer peak period.

8
9

So I think you know it's not just about
introducing that warming trend, because really if you look

10

at the way the resource mix is moving into a lot of solar, a

11

lot of storage, I'm not convinced that summer hot period is

12

going to be the peak risk anymore.

13

periods, or shoulder periods where it's anomalous weather

14

around what the power system wasn't designed for

15

historically.

16

It's going to be winter

So I think when we think about climate data, and

17

how we introduce that in the power system planning, it's not

18

necessarily the warming trend we have to worry about, it's

19

these anomalous weather events.

20

and solar event.

21

ramifications on the gas supply and mechanical failures.

22

It's a multi-day low wind

It's the extreme cold and how that has

So it's really the correlated events that we have

23

to worry about where it can lead to cascading values across

24

the network as well as chronological hour to hour changes in

25

the way the power system operates.

27

1

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you.

2

to a great start.

3

people, three people.

4

would you like to go first please?

5

I think that got us off

Is there anyone else?

MS. HOGLE:

Oh, I see two

Jessica Hogle I saw yours first,

Sure thanks Louise.

I just want to

6

build on those last comments.

I think you know we know that

7

the impacts of climate change are going to be both kind of

8

acute and chronic over the long-term.

9

us at PG&E was really just back in 2015 identifying what are

So a first step for

10

the universal climate driven impacts that we think we are

11

going to experience.

12

wildfires, sea level rise, land subsidence, more heavy and

13

increased storms et cetera.

14

And there were six, including drought,

And then you know the next phase, and we worked

15

on you know with our CPUC and other stakeholders, a process

16

to identify what a good current vulnerability assessment

17

looks like, how do we incorporate and understand that data?

18

And in that process what we're looking at okay, what is the

19

exposure that exists, which I just discussed.

20

What is the sensitivity of our assets in the

21

exposure of those assets to those climate-driven risks, and

22

then finally what is the adaptive capacity of our

23

infrastructure to those risks?

24

that means you know how easy would it be, what are the

25

resources available, or knowledge available that we have to

And by adaptive capacity

28

1

be able to respond to these?

2

So a good way to think about that is a

3

transformer that's sensitive to heat relatively higher

4

adaptive capacity because we can change that transformer

5

relatively easily.

6

is subject to sea level rise, that you know, is less

7

adaptive capacity because we would either have to relocate

8

it or rise it.

9

However, a you know, a substation that

It would take more to be able to do that.

And so you know I think how you -- what are the

10

best practices and how you use that data is you know

11

understanding what your risks are, how that impacts your

12

assets, and then how easy it would be to address those

13

risks.

14

window of time, some risks that you're going to experience

15

today, and that we're already experiencing today in

16

California, like drought, wildfires, and heatwaves.

And then obviously, when you understand kind of the

17

You know those require kind of nearer term

18

actions, and then you have over at the long-term more

19

ability to address the sea level rise, things that are over,

20

you know, chronic over the long-term.

21

gathering the data and then incorporating and leveraging

22

that data to inform your decision-making.

23
24
25

MS. NUTTER:

So I think it's

Thank you very much.

Undersecretary

Chang I believe you were next.
MS. CHANG:

Great.

Thank you.

First all thank

29

1

you very much for inviting me and letting me speak on this

2

esteemed panel here.

3

couldn't agree more to the previous respondents to that

4

question.

5

us.

6

planning in expected load or weather and temperature.

I just want to maybe first of all

I think there is a lot that history cannot tell

Back to your question about how to conduct future

7

How do we use analyses to inform the future.

I

8

do think that the future is much, much more complex than it

9

was in history, so we cannot only rely on historical trends

10

that particularly for example load, and you mentioned load

11

in your question.

12

nice, perhaps smooth econometric trends that many load

13

forecasters have been using.

14

Many factors that are disrupting the

And you know you heard about it already in the

15

previous comments about simultaneity, and a correlation

16

across.

17

example, the pattern of electricity usage, just in general

18

will be changing.

19

electrification of transportation and buildings, and the

20

pattern of grid connected electricity usage is of course

21

affected by installed solar and wind for example.

22

And I will just give you some examples.

For

For example, we're working on

But also the simultaneous impact of changes in

23

weather related events like climate related events, and how

24

they affect both load and the usage of these renewable

25

generation was significantly will be different, much, much

30

1

more in the future than it is in the past.

2

We cannot use historical patterns to really

3

directly inform the future.

4

that new load forecast means.

5

going to change over the next decade and beyond.

6

pursue as we are in New England, but in general if

7

decarbonization is one of the aggressive goals, that means

8

that heating and cooling loads will increase because we're

9

actually transforming our building sector and trying to use

10

So we need to disaggregate what
Heating and cooling loads are
If we

more electricity in heating and cooling.

11

But of course we know heating and cooling are

12

affected by weather events, so again just to emphasize the

13

importance of what Derek said earlier about the correlation

14

between weather, and load is not as direct as it used to be.

15

We can't just ask you know what temperature we have and then

16

answer this is the assumption on load because there are now

17

behind the meter solar, and solar plus storage, which will

18

be affected by weather, just as load will be affected by

19

weather.

20

At the same time we're adding buildings and

21

electrifying building usages, and those will also be

22

affected by weather.

23

events we need to significantly change the way we think

24

about electricity load forecast, and not just load.

25

we can talk more about transmission and generation.

So I do think in extreme weather

I mean

31

1

But extreme heat in summers, extreme cold in

2

winters, and in regions where we didn't use to use

3

electricity as much for heating, that's going to change in

4

the future, so we actually not only care about summer heat

5

as that I already talked about, but also extreme cold in the

6

winter just like you saw in Texas.

7

And then extreme weather and wind conditions that

8

of course will affect our infrastructure which we'll talk

9

more about in the later questions.

10

MS. NUTTER:

11
12

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Miss Barton I

think you're next.
MS. BARTON:

Thank you.

And I certainly won't

13

repeat some of the same things that have been said by

14

previous panelists that I think are spot on.

15

do want to emphasize that the current deterministic planning

16

methodology that we have used today it works when supply is

17

highly dispatchable when weather is predictable, when peak

18

demand is reached only a few days a year.

19

But I really

Demand as Judy said, really has been a proxy for

20

the impact of weather and temperature, and reliability

21

assessments have been made through contingency analysis, and

22

that's what fundamentally needs to change.

23

how we planned the system from you know back in time.

24

gone from a utility system individual plan to a more

25

regional plan, and quite frankly, wasn't that long ago that

If you look at
We've

32

1

it was only factoring in voltage collapse and thermal

2

violations.

3

To one today post-Order 1000 that has expanded to

4

economic and new policy driven changes.

5

to say that the way we plan the system has not been static,

6

and it's important for us to continue to recognize the need

7

to evolve.

8

unacceptable, as Adam had mentioned.

9

And so it's really

The cost of failure is quite frankly

As we look towards a clean energy economy, our

10

customers, our communities are going to be more dependent on

11

the grid, and therefore our expectations on how it's

12

designed have to be different.

13

the tools that can be used is integrated form, excuse me,

14

forecast model.

15

the age of their system.

16

need to take a look at a more local level.

17

happen within a particular utility?

18

within a region?

19

with these various weather events?

20

So you know really one of

One that's really looking at facilities and
You know for example if you really
What's going to

What's going to happen

What's going to happen between regions

And certainly we can talk on some other questions

21

about how we drill down into that.

22

needs to be a layered review.

23

interregional, and that's how we make sure that it's not

24

cost-prohibitive to get through this transition.

25

MS. NUTTER:

But that fundamentally

Utility, regional,

Thank you very much.

Mrs. DesRoches

33

1

I think you're the next speaker.

2

MS. DESROCHES:

Thank you.

I again wanted to

3

thank everyone for the invitation today with such a great

4

group.

5

answer to the question is we absolutely cannot use

6

historical weather data.

7

projections and embed that into our planning process.

8
9

I won't repeat what others have said.

I think the

We need to take climate

And you know I represent the City of New York, so
my perspective here on this question is that we need a

10

consistent approach that full at the distribution level and

11

the bulk level as well as generation.

12

that's a very desperate set of operators and owners, and

13

there's no consistency that's mandated for folks to be

14

planning and designing with the same consistent set of data.

15

So in fact right now

So you know my recommendation is that we look to

16

the national climate assessment.

We look to NOAA to provide

17

a range of climate projections that are then utilized across

18

the system, and they can be done in a regional level,

19

certainly the NCA-4, national climate assessment 4 provides

20

regional assessments data as well as what those impacts are

21

going to be even on the electric sector.

22

In New York State and New York City we have a

23

number of different climate changes efforts that will be

24

ongoing, but we do benefit from having a consistent set of

25

projections.

And again those can be successfully embedded

34

1

into the distribution network planning, as well at the NYISO

2

level, and we can talk about that more later.

3

But again that consistency across the scales of

4

the system is critical so that we're not having an imbalance

5

of how that system functions depending on what that future

6

climate looks like.

7

Thank you.

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you.

It sounds like a lot of

8

interesting things to talk about today.

9

you're next.

10

MS. WEBB:

Yeah thank you.

Miss Webb I think

And thanks to you and

11

the other Commission staff for organizing today's technical

12

conference and for the invitation to participate.

13

wanted to you to know at the outset that my remarks today

14

are my opinions.

15

in collaboration with environmental defense fund, looking at

16

climate risk in the electricity sector.

17

report on the topic in December last year which we provided

18

to the Commission about climate in advance of the technical

19

conference.

I just

So like I said the Sabin Center has done

We published a

20

One of the points that we make in the report that

21

I think is worth reiterating here that others have eluded to

22

is that climate change really presents a fundamentally

23

different problem than electric utilities and other in the

24

industry have had to deal with in the past.

25

Of course utilities and system operators have a

35

1

long history of dealing with extreme weather and the

2

challenges.

3

sort of cascading compounding synergistic risks.

4

because we have this new challenge we really need to rethink

5

old planning approaches and suggest them, and also develop

6

new planning approaches.

7

previous speaker's comments that we should be integrating

8

climate projections into existing planning processes.

9

But climate change as we heard presents the
And so

So I would wholly second the

We can talk more about this in other questions,

10

but you know the quality and availability of the climate

11

projections, particularly downscale climate projections that

12

show impacts regionally and locally has improved

13

significantly, and many are already publicly available, and

14

there are more that could be developed.

15

But simply integrating to some of the previous

16

speaker points, simply integrating those forward looking

17

projections into existing planning processes is unlikely to

18

be sufficient.

19

existing processes around for example how we measure average

20

generator outage and availability, assuming a consistent

21

average across every hour of the year doesn't necessarily

22

make sense when we know that extremes, particularly extremes

23

in temperature, can affect those things.

24
25

We're going to need to rethink some of those

So integrating those adjustments into the
existing planning processes.

And also thinking about new

36

1

specialized planning processes that are more -- are better

2

suited to dealing with climate change along the lines of a

3

colleague from PG&E described.

4

climate resilience planning will be very important.

5
6

MS. NUTTER:
still raised.

That sort of more specific

Thank you.

Miss Barton your hand is

Did you want to speak again?

7

MS. BARTON:

No.

8

MS. NUTTER:

And actually I have a follow-up

9

Sorry about that.

question kind of based primarily on what you said and what

10

some other people have said.

11

example layered reviews on utilities, regional, so I was

12

wondering if you could share with us a little more detail on

13

how AEP has started down that road, and experiences you

14

might be able to share with us.

15

MS. BARTON:

Sure.

Some planners are changing for

You know one of the things

16

that we did with respect to our recent climate study is look

17

at a report that was done by Perdue University, and really

18

taking the impacts associated with climate change in terms

19

of what does it do to temperature?

20

demand?

21

What does that due to

What really needs to be done as previous

22

panelists have mentioned is that each should be really taken

23

to a different level.

24

deterministic planning, but we need to basically use

25

probabilistic and static methods to better manage those

We need to continue to use

37

1
2

risks.
And let me give you maybe an example of how this

3

can be done.

4

reviewing the system.

5

what's happening at the utility level.

6

climate, weather, demand, implications, what facilities have

7

an increased risk, of failure.

8

associated with that?

9

If you think about it from the standpoint of
And I mentioned you take the view of
So if you factor in

What is the restoration time

What will it mean from a demand perspective?

10

What other facilities will it impact?

11

give you a couple examples on the AEP system.

12

to lose a transmission tower in West Virginia which is

13

really going mountaintop to mountaintop, it can take me over

14

three months to restore that transmission tower.

15

And so let me just
So if I were

If we're in Oklahoma, and it's very flat it might

16

take me only a couple of days.

17

things that really need to be all thought through, and I

18

think at the individual utility level companies can

19

determine what's going to happen to their system.

20

example, the systems that we have are a culmination of

21

assets that we have been building for the past 100 years.

22

These are the kinds of

So for

And so, they are not all built to 2021 standards.

23

Some are billed to 2030 standards.

24

different climate scenarios?

25

probabilistic view.

How will they do in

So it's really taking a

What you would also do I think at the

38

1

next level is take a look at similar questions at a regional

2

level, again.

3

What are the changes that you can expect within

4

your region because certainly in the Midwest the answer to

5

what's going to happen from a climate perspective is going

6

to be very different than it would be for California, or

7

what it would be with respect to Florida.

8
9

So putting that all into perspective is
important, and then asking ourselves you know how do we

10

ensure resiliency?

11

necessary protections on black start generation on black

12

start paths?

13

How do we make sure that we have the

What will happen to our black start paths?

I think all of the planning that we want to do in

14

the world is wonderful, but we also have to make sure that

15

should something happen because we came awfully close in

16

Texas.

17

deviation away from losing an entire interconnect it goes to

18

show you how important we have to -- or I should say the

19

level of attention that we have to place on restarting the

20

grid.

21

When you are two one-hundredths of a frequency

And so thinking about redundant black start

22

paths, making sure that our black start generation is the

23

most resilient of our generation, while asking ourselves the

24

question is load shift an acceptable tool?

25

been an acceptable tool in the past.

It has always

Will it continue to

39

1

be?

And then thirdly as you go to the interregional view, I

2

think that it's really important to -- and we learned this

3

from Storm Uri as well.

4

The more the regions can lean on each other for

5

assistance, the better positioned they'll be.

The more we

6

can -- just think of the geographic diversity that you can

7

get if you're in a future which has a lot more variable

8

resources.

9

impacted within your region, or within that local utility,

While your variable resources may be adversely

10

but going to the next RTO all of their wind resources are

11

still spinning.

12

Having those strong interconnections, making sure

13

that you can lean on each other is going to be part of the

14

no regret solutions that I think when we think about

15

planning we need to focus on.

16

goes a long way to making sure that it's a cost-effective

17

transition as well.

18
19
20

MS. NUTTER:

And I think that that also

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stenclik

would you also like to respond to this?
MR. STENCLIK:

Yeah I'd like to add on to Lisa's

21

great kind of conclusion and comments there about

22

transmission and regional coordination because ultimately

23

transmission should be viewed as a reliability asset.

24

times we get stuck in a mindset that we need more capacity,

25

or more skin on the ground in terms of generation to meet

Often

40

1

some of these risks, the transmission is a key reliability

2

contributor.

3

And ultimately that just comes down to regional

4

coordination.

It could mean more interregional

5

transmission.

It could just mean a change to the

6

institutional way we view climate, and the way we do

7

resource adequacy analysis, the way we do reliability

8

planning.

9

The more that we can link regions together, you

10

pick up on geographic diversity, not just in the wind and

11

solar resources, you pick it up in terms of the load, and

12

ultimately on the weather themselves.

13

look at the ERCOT event MISO and SPP were also struggling

14

during that weather event, but ultimately could support one

15

another, and also receipt imports from neighboring regions.

16

Obviously, if you

If you also look at pricing data during those

17

events while the Midwest was seeing extremely high prices

18

and shortage events.

19

rather normal day, so the ability to add more transmission,

20

and more capability to share resources, again not just by

21

adding more words, but there's institutional barriers here

22

as well and climbing barriers that need to be addressed.

23

If you look further east it was a

Ultimately, when we think about reliability as an

24

industry we need to rather jog about cohesive regional

25

planning, or full interconnection planning to make sure that

41

1

we're fully leveraging that capability for reliability.

2

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Both of you

3

have given an information answer in that pocket.

4

did you also want to speak to this one?

5

MS. HOGLE:

Sure.

Miss Hogle

I want to build on what Lisa

6

and Derek said too and comments we heard earlier because I

7

don't want to underscore how important you know I think it

8

was Susanne that said that consistency of data that you're

9

using right?

In California you know we're using the RCP

10

8.5, and we're also using the California climate assessment

11

data.

12

We know that that's being applied throughout the

13

state by not only the investor and the utilities, but our

14

local communities as they do their resilience planning.

15

I think having that shared dataset is really helpful and

16

important.

17

right -- transmission, distribution, generation.

18

So

And then we are looking at the entire chain

And you know for us in California as Lisa was

19

mentioning around variable resources, we do have to think

20

about what the impacts of climate are going to be on our

21

generation and our supply because obviously, you know, if

22

you're in the middle of a heatwave it tends to be dryer, and

23

there could be less wind, so maybe you don't have as much

24

wind, or if you have really heavy storms, and you have

25

several days of that you're not going to have the same

42

1

solar output that you had.

2

So it's very complex in terms of everything that

3

you need to consider, but it is important to understand and

4

consider the entire landscape that can have an impact as

5

well as you know that consistency of data in terms of what

6

we believe the potential scenarios could be that we should

7

be planning around.

8
9

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

been talking about shared datasets.

So now we've

I was wondering if

10

Doctor Easterling you would like to talk about that since

11

you might be one of the sources for some of that data?

12

DR. EASTERLING:

Sure.

So just a little

13

background.

I'm the Director of the National Climate

14

Assessment Technical Support Unit, and so we do develop the

15

climate scenarios that are used in the national climate

16

assessment.

17

using mainly simulations from the major climate modeling

18

groups from around the world.

We develop the ones for the NCA-4 and the NCA-3

19

So when the intergovernmental panel on climate

20

change does their major reports that come out about every

21

six years or so, the major modeling groups have a set of

22

scenarios they use to produce simulations, and then put it

23

into a big database.

24

use.

25

Those are available for anybody to

For the NCA-4 we used the couple modeled with our

43

1

comparison project 5, CMIP 5.

2

to produce sort of a large scale climate scenarios of using

3

RCPA

4

we're going to be relying on CMIP 6, which is the latest

5

version of all the different climate modeling groups

6

simulations, and these total you know like many dozens of

7

climate model simulations, and then we also use what's

8

called statistical balance scaling, divert the California

9

assessment was mentioned.

10

point 5 and 4.5 mainly.

So the modeling simulations

And for the upcoming NCA-5

We're using LOCA, the localized -- I'm trying to

11

remember what the acronym stands for, but anyway it's a

12

statistical downscaling product that we have used.

13

go, so we can go to the next slide.

14

CMIP 5 and our derivatives.

15

Here we

So for NCA-4 we used

So we used LOCA, mainly RCP 4.5 and 8.5.

We did

16

include some material on 2.6

17

out a report on warming at 1.5 and 2, what the impacts would

18

be.

19

it's supposed to come out every four years.

20

little bit of delay in getting going.

21

on CMIP 6, and likely the LOCA 2 downscaling.

22

If you remember the IPCC put

For NCA-5 we're just now getting started on a report,
You have a

We're going to focus

There are a number -- somebody mentioned there

23

are a number of different methods out there for downscaling,

24

so basically if you can go to the next slide.

25

you sort of the raw GCM or global climate model output for

This shows

44

1
2

this is the annual temperature change.
At the end of this century from the climatology

3

from the end of the last century, it's very smooth.

4

don't really see a whole lot of detail except to see that

5

you have the largest warming going on at the highest

6

latitudes, in the polar regions, not quite so much warming

7

as you get down into areas like Mexico.

8

of warming through, but you don't feel a lot of the sort of

9

the regional detail that you'd like to see in scenarios.

10

You

Still quite a bit

So if you go to the next slide we used localized

11

constructed analogs.

12

product from Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and it gives

13

you a much finer spatial resolution in terms of sort of

14

where you can resolve things like you know the Rocky

15

Mountains, the Appalachian Mountains, things like that that

16

are very important because they do have an impact on.

17

This is a specifically downscaled

What we use these for was basically looking at

18

scenarios of extremes and I'm going to show you one example,

19

and that's the next slide.

20

NCA-4, so we did this about three or four years ago.

21

you could see there's much more detail in terms of where

22

we're going to see these changes.

23

Okay this is from LOCA for the
But

You can actually see the Rocky Mountains, and to

24

a lesser extent the Appalachian Mountains and in the

25

mountains in Mexico where you can see this is the change of

45

1

the number of days over 90 degrees at the end of the

2

century.

3

So we produced these for the use by the authors and national

4

climate assessment, you know, we feel like they're sort of

5

state of the art, probably the best that people can use

6

right now.

7

And it's quite large in terms of the scenarios.

And we are going to make these available to the

8

general pubic on the website once we've gone through an

9

analyzed all the schematic simulations and the downscaling

10
11

and produce these kinds of products.
So and one thing I actually wanted to pick up on

12

that Judy Chang said.

13

sort of a smooth monatomic trend.

14

the global temperature Time series that shows into the end

15

of the century sort of a smooth increase in temperature.

16

You have to keep in mind that that was produced using an

17

average -- what we call a multi-bottle average, so it's an

18

average of probably 50 or 60 simulations.

19

Climate change is not going to be
You've probably all seen

And so what ends up happening is all the natural

20

variability within the temperature changes and other changes

21

within the climate system are kind of averaged out, and all

22

you do is you get the forced trend that is there from using

23

RCPA .5 or 4.5.

24

and starts in reality.

25

But climate change is going to have bits

And it's going to you know I did a paper on --

46

1

you've probably heard the so-called hiatus in global

2

temperatures.

3

sorts of slowdowns in global temperature and regional

4

temperature are going to happen in a climate system because

5

we have a forced trend, which is the increase in carbon

6

dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but we also have natural

7

variability that occurs due to things like volcanic

8

eruptions, changes in El Nino, La Nina and things like that.

9

And we did a paper that showed that those

So keep in mind it's not going to be a linear

10

trend, and also if there are thresholds that are going to be

11

passed as we have an increase in temperature and so you know

12

that's something that when you're looking at load

13

forecasting and things like that you have to keep in mind in

14

the future.

15

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

That was a lot

16

of good information.

17

there's the one from -- I mean somebody might be able to

18

respond on this.

19

sounds like that you could use, or do you have any potential

20

feedback about this.

21

would like to maybe respond?

22

Kind of as a follow-up to that in LOCA

Is what you're describing something that

Mrs. DesRoches I was wondering if you

MS. DESROCHES:

Sure thanks.

So in New York City

23

we have down sampled climate projections through an academic

24

body called the New York City Panel on Climate Change.

25

it provides very similar information to what David was just

But

47

1

showing, so days over 90 degrees, sea level rise projections

2

in a range of RCPs et cetera.

3

So we've used that data for the last over a

4

decade or so to do climate change planning in New York City

5

as well as collaborating with partners like Con-Edison, or

6

local distribution provider, and in NYISO to really take

7

that data that comes from the climate scientists, and figure

8

out how to exactly to embed it into the existing planning,

9

but I think point well taken, the existing planning is only

10

going to take us so far.

11

So again I think you know from my perspective,

12

we've been using this data for over a decade.

13

useful.

14

want?

15

decide how conservative, and I think Miss Hogle using the

16

most conservative for our electric network is critical, that

17

we you know take a conservative approach.

18

It's very

Is it as precise as our engineering community would
No.

You have to choose a direction.

You have to

We look at those high end projections and you

19

know we also look to use scenario planning which I know we

20

haven't talked about, and we may discuss a little bit later

21

to really get at those swings in what's going to happen.

22

as we saw in Texas we certainly have also seen polar vortex

23

events in the northeast.

24
25

Those really super, super cold days.
you know sometimes a week.

So

They last

We have to plan for that as well

48

1

as you know a three or four times the amount of days over 90

2

degrees, at least that's where we'll be in New York City.

3

So again, we have a long history of using this kind of data.

4

Not just in the electric sector, in transportation and

5

otherwise to do successful adaptation planning.

6

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

7

see you would also like to respond.

8

MR. STENCLIK:

Yeah thanks.

Mr. Stenclik I

I think David's

9

response for me at least highlighted the importance to

10

really link power systems planning and climatology and

11

weather modeling in general.

12

times I'm not a climate expert.

13

an expert in weather, but it's so foundational to the work

14

that I do every day.

15

I think what happens a lot of
I'm not a meteorologist, or

I rely on others to really translate, I mean the

16

work that David's doing and getting into the inputs that I

17

need for my powered system modeling and simulations, namely

18

correlated wind speeds, solar radiance data, temperature,

19

precipitation.

20

system actually operates on a chronological hour by hour

21

basis is critical.

22

Like the inputs that go into how the power

So I just think there just needs to be better

23

linking of the power system planning codes to have more of a

24

background in meteorology and climate, and vice-versa with

25

the climate community to have a little bit more background

49

1

in the power system operations.

2

critical.

3

That's going to be

I think the industry has done better in the past

4

several years.

5

for many years of chronological solar profiles and wind

6

profiles.

7

National Solar Radiation Database that can provide solar

8

power production profiles across the country.

9

I think we have more tools at our disposal

There's a couple of datasets out of NREL, the

Likewise for wind, although I'm on a much smaller

10

time scale in terms of historical weather.

11

type of weather datasets we need more of in the industry.

12

Many years of time synchronizing consistent datasets around

13

wind speeds, solar, load, and ambient conditions I think

14

ultimately that's kind of the next step.

15

And that's the

We can do better as an industry even without a

16

climate trend, and then the difficulty will be having a

17

climate trend on top of that.

18

gap is going one step further and taking that climate trend

19

data and getting it into the format namely hourly,

20

chronological wind or solar production profiles.

21

really a big gap that I see.

22

So I think for me it's the

That's

And then also on the load side I think FERC 714,

23

or FERC form 714 is kind of the go to source for the load

24

data if you're going to do a large regional or national

25

study, and I think that can also be improved, have more

50

1

insight on weather conditions and distributed generation and

2

likewise.

3
4

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Dr. Easterly I

see your hand raised.

5

DR. EASTERLY:

Yeah.

I'd just like to pick up on

6

something that Derek mentioned and that's so when we produce

7

these scenarios, we're trying to have a standard of things

8

like days over 90, heavy precipitation, things like that.

9

And it would be really useful I think for us to be able to

10

interact with people like you guys that really have a use

11

for these things, and putting them into your forecasting

12

models, as to what variables you really need.

13

We produce, you know temperature and

14

precipitation, downscaling mainly if you're looking at

15

statistical downscaling, it's mainly temperature and

16

precipitation.

17

downscaling that's basically wanting a regional climate

18

model for general climate, global climate model.

19

get a lot more of these variables like wind and things like

20

that.

If you look at what we call dynamical

You can

21

And mostly what we do is temperature.

I think

22

LOCA does humidity as well, or maybe one or two others, but

23

there may be some variables that you guys need that we could

24

pull out of the general circulation model and global climate

25

models and downscale that aren't currently being done.

51

1
2

So that's something that I think I could see you
know as a really useful sort of collaboration.

3

MS. NUTTER:

4

like a good idea.

5

is also raised.

6

Thank you very much.

That sounds

Undersecretary Chang I see that your hand

MS. CHANG:

Yeah I just want to chime in because

7

first of all you can see already from this dialogue how

8

important this kind of discussion is, and I don't think

9

we've had this kind of discussion until now.

At least not

10

at the scale that we need to at the national level, regional

11

level, and you know local level.

12

First, I'm going to just summarize a few things,

13

and one is that absolutely incorporate the best available

14

climate data in planning, system planning, electric system

15

planning.

16

that.

17

type of data do you want, and what granularity?

18

And that's very broad, okay we can talk about

And then the data as David pointed out, like what

What geospatial level?

We all need to have like

19

a sit down and really roll up our sleeves kind of dialogue

20

around that because what you know Lisa might need is very

21

different than what New York City might need for example.

22

So I think we need to view that, and then the third -- the

23

sort of several layers of how climate affects the power

24

system, and I don't want to -- I want to try to reduce the

25

complexity because when I listen to what you know Lisa was

52

1
2

saying earlier, this is very complex.
So I want to reduce the complexity a little bit.

3

One is that there is all this sort of wind, solar load which

4

is how does climate, change in climate, and weather events,

5

or weather related events affect all of those things?

6

that itself is complicated enough.

7

And

And NOAA has data on that, NREL has data on that.

8

But you know as even if we didn't have climate, we still

9

have to work on that very, very well.

And then the other --

10

all distinct and separate from that is the physical impacts

11

right, the impact of climate on the physical assets, the

12

physical generation assets and transmission distribution

13

because you know you could take wildfire as an example, or

14

any other severe storm as an example.

15

We may not in the future want to place

16

transmission lines along the same corridor.

We may need

17

more diversity in the future.

18

think to think about looking into the future as far as load

19

forecast is the assets we build today are meant to last 40,

20

50, 70 and maybe even 100 years long, so the climate

21

forecast is not just for the next year or 10 years, we have

22

to think about when we make these investments you know

23

multi-billion dollar investments, what they're going to look

24

like 70 years from now because most of them will actually

25

still be there, or parts of them will still be there.

The most important thing I

53

1

And that's a huge deal because we don't know what

2

the climate will look like.

3

later questions about scenario-based analysis or stochastic

4

and probabilistic analyses, but I think there's two separate

5

things.

6

how it affects usage power.

7

So then we can talk you know in

One is sort of load and wind and solar forecasting

And then the other one is these weather events

8

will affect our assets physically, like the investment

9

strategy will have to actually change and maybe even you

10

know Lisa eluded to this before.

11

criteria may have to change because we may not want to build

12

a whole bunch of things all subject to the same wildfire

13

risk, you know they're all too close to you know the

14

highest drought or area.

15

Even the reliability

So I think there's two separate pieces here, and

16

that shows why this kind of dialogue would you know folks

17

like David and your shop is really important because you may

18

not know exactly what form the data we want -- we meaning

19

the power sector wants, and we might not know how to

20

translate that data into something that's useful, so I think

21

this dialogue is extremely important.

22

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

23

several of you have raised your hands.

24

you're first.

25

MS. HOGLE:

Thank you.

Sure.

I see that

Miss Hogle I think

I just wanted to raise on you

54

1

know kind of the availability of data.

2

question at the end is this helpful, and I think the answer

3

is always yes right?

4

important and it's always helpful.

5

we're very fortunate that California has invested in you

6

know providing this data.

7

David asked the

Availability of data is critically
I know for us at PGE

And it's downscaled in a way so that it's

8

actionable or useable for us.

And where we you know don't

9

have what we need we have the ability to reach out and

10

obtain that because we have the resources to do so.

11

example I can give you is recently we partnered with Argon

12

National Labs to understand what the future Diablo wind

13

patterns would look like in Northern California, because

14

that helps us project what our future wildfire risk is

15

going to be, you know, out to 2050.

16

So an

But again we're very fortunate because we have

17

the resources available to us to be able to do that, but

18

that doesn't exist everywhere and I just want to raise kind

19

of the equity lens and consideration into this discussion

20

because you know we're one part of an entire kind of

21

critical infrastructure ecosystem, and water infrastructure,

22

transportation.

23

You know as I think Lisa mentioned is more and

24

more sectors become dependent on the grid it's critical that

25

we have this, but we also have to understand that we're only

55

1

as resilient as we all are together, and so I just think the

2

more we can provide data, and the more you know FERC and for

3

us in California we're seeing the CPUC do this you know kind

4

of providing a blueprint as to how we may do things, and

5

being transparent about it.

6

And you know so that folks can look at that and

7

be able to say okay, I need to be doing the same thing.

8

Perhaps I could use that as an example and leverage that as

9

I do my own adaptation planning.

I just think it's really

10

important to recognize that not everyone has the same

11

resources that we have and that you know we're only as

12

resilient as we all are together right?

13
14
15

We're only as strong as our weakest link.

Thank

you.
MS. NUTTER:

16

believe you're next.

17

MS. WEBB:

Thank you very much.

Yeah thank you.

Miss Webb I

And so Miss Hogle

18

made an excellent point about you know opportunities for

19

collaboration that utilities and system operators and others

20

in the industry should be exploring where they have the

21

opportunity.

22

in New York, Con-Edison our distribution utility when they

23

were doing their climate vulnerability assessment partnered

24

with Columbia University scientists to develop the specific

25

data that they needed to feed into that analysis.

I think there's been some great examples here

56

1

As we said that's not possible for all utilities,

2

but certainly the utilities that can do that their

3

experience offers learnings that others can take onboard and

4

move forward with.

5

something that Undersecretary Chang said about the sort of

6

physical risks to physical infrastructure, and how that

7

influences sort of long-term investment and planning and

8

decision-making around investment.

9

I also just wanted to pick up on

You know there has been I think on occasion a

10

reluctance by some in the electric industry to rely on

11

forward looking projections because they are very far out

12

into the future, you know, they're not sure of anticipated

13

climate conditions in 2050 or beyond.

14

And they are not absolutely 100 percent certain.

15

But to Undersecretary Chang's point, you know utilities and

16

system operators and others are making investments in

17

long-lived assets, many of which may still be around in

18

2050.

19

future, doesn't undermine their usefulness, and that if

20

anything it actually increases their usefulness as a sort of

21

input into the decision-making tool.

22

So the fact that these projections are far into the

And not only does factoring those forward-looking

23

projections into those investment decisions sort of help to

24

design more resilient infrastructure and sort of build in

25

resilience so that we can avoid the need for future

57

1

retrofits or hardening, it also has other financial benefits

2

you know we're seeing increasing concern within the

3

financial and the insurance communities about future climate

4

risk.

5

And so utilities and others that fail to

6

integrate those climate considerations into their investment

7

and design decisions are likely to face higher insurance and

8

burrowing costs going forward.

9

to take this forward looking future focused approach,

10

thanks.

11
12

So there's a lot of reasons

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Miss DesRoches

I believe that you're next.

13

MS. DESROCHES:

Thank you.

I wanted to follow-up

14

with Undersecretary Chang's comment there on the two paths

15

right -- the existing vulnerability as well as the

16

forecasting into the future and just point at a couple of

17

examples that we have here in New York State, New York City.

18

The NYISO who I think is on as an attendee did a

19

climate change forecasting effort where they did both.

20

looked at what is the future climate going to be like, and

21

how are we decarbonizing?

22

look like?

23

by you know anyone in the NYISO region and beyond that looks

24

out about 20 years with both of those pieces in there.

25

They

And what is that future energy

And they have produced demand forecasts for use

Now it doesn't have the vulnerability of the

58

1

existing system, and I think that that is something that we

2

really have very little understanding of when those towers

3

were built, when those underground cables were installed,

4

how vulnerable are they now to climate change?

5

does that vulnerability increase over time?

6

And how much

But from a forecasting perspective, the NYISO has

7

been for the last few years at the urging of several

8

stakeholders, including the City of New York, produced these

9

forward looking projections of our demand.

So to Derek's

10

question of like we need these you know solar and wind load

11

curves, we actually in New York State coupled that with what

12

are the impacts of climate change, how is the temperature

13

changing, and what are we seeing in the future.

14

Which I think is something that should be done

15

again -- my point earlier consistently, across the nation

16

where we have interdependencies.

17

wanted to point out, and I believe Miss Webb brought this

18

up.

19

same for the last since Sandy, Hurricane Sandy, so that was

20

in 2012.

The other thing that I

The city has been working very closely with kind of the

21

So we're coming up on a decade, really to look at

22

what are these two questions.

What is that vulnerability

23

today of these assets?

24

like?

25

own assets and with their own systems understanding

What does the future climate look

And how do we base our implementing plan within their

59

1

vulnerabilities today, and as they project out in the

2

future.

3

All that information is public and will be

4

updated on a regular basis which leads me to my other point.

5

This is all iterative right?

6

when we -- I think that we shouldn't be looking for the

7

perfect planning process.

8

processes we have today, and we can't wait for that to

9

happen because that could take a really long time to come up

10

And so you know, I think that

We have to adapt the planning

with the next planning type of planning process.

11

So New York City has produced climate resiliency

12

design guidelines where we take the climate projections.

We

13

actually issue them as data over time for engineers and

14

architects to use in all planning processes and capital

15

expenditures.

16

perspective, from a precipitation perspective, and sea level

17

rise.

And we say you must build to this from a heat

18

And so is it the perfect tool?

19

but it really says okay, as of today we're no longer

20

building with those historical trends, and you can actually

21

take that projection data and translate it into a more

22

static points in time -- datapoints in time that will make

23

those assets more robust.

24
25

Absolutely not,

I think this needs to happen at least at a
regional level, which I know is very complicated and

60

1

difficult to do.

Certainly across the different regulatory

2

entities that construct that we have, but there needs to be

3

that kind of guidance so that people can start today and not

4

you know wait until that planning process is perfected in

5

order to start integrating climate change thank you.

6

MS. NUTTER:

7

Easterling I believe you're next.

8

you're speaking I believe you're on mute.

9

Thank you very much.

DR. EASTERLING:

Doctor

Doctor Easterling if

I was muted.

So I want to

10

follow-up on a couple of things.

11

there are a lot of users in small municipalities, probably

12

small utilities that can't afford to pay you know somebody

13

to develop the scenario for them to use in their planning

14

purposes.

15

One of those was you know

And one of the things that we're looking at in

16

NOAA, I know we started looking at in the past six months or

17

so is trying to take some of our climate model out, because

18

we do have a number of state of the art climate models

19

within NOAA, and actually develop a tool that users can come

20

in and take a look at climate scenarios for RCPA .5 or 4.5,

21

and use those in planning.

22

You know sort of you know it's not the sort of

23

thing you would get if you went out and paid $500,000.00 to

24

some company to give you a scenario, but it gives you a

25

basic tool to be able to get some idea of what might happen.

61

1

So you know one example is looking at let's say Wilmington,

2

North Carolina.

3

They're a small city.

They can't afford

4

necessarily to pay somebody for sea level rise scenarios,

5

but we do produce sea level rise scenarios.

6

the coast and it's you know developed as sort of a website

7

and web-based tool they can use, so you know that's

8

something that we're looking at now within NOAA is to be

9

able to produce that sort of thing, so that smaller users,

Wilmington's on

10

people that can't afford to go out and pay somebody, at

11

least they have somewhere to turn to be able to use more

12

planning processes.

13
14

Thank you.

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Miss Barton

your hand is raised.

15

MS. BARTON:

Yeah.

So I think she addressed the

16

cost and the difficulty associated with individual companies

17

looking at this.

18

this.

19

develop just a number of scenarios, as I think was mentioned

20

earlier by someone.

21

everything.

22

be perfect 30 years from now.

23

The RTOs are very well-positioned to do

We can use the RTO planning process to quite frankly

We cannot sit there and harden

The grid is not perfect today in that will not

But we can get better in terms of how are we

24

making decisions, where do we route lines?

These can be

25

important bits of information for state regulators as well.

62

1

Maybe you don't want to be on the top of the mountain for

2

having your transmission assets.

3

Maybe you want to take a different path.

These

4

are all the kinds of things that are really important, but I

5

think starting with the RTOs, and using downscaling to get

6

the RTOs to focus on it, and getting the larger utilities to

7

focus on it you will get significant coverage, and

8

significant attention to these probabilistic views.

9
10

MS. NUTTER:

Miss DesRoches

do you have anything that you wanted to say?

11
12

Thank you very much.

MS. DESROCHES:
last time.

13

Sorry my hand was still up from

Thanks.
MS. NUTTER:

Is there anyone who would like to

14

respond further on any of the topics we've been discussing

15

here?

16

question.

17

next question.

18

Okay.

I think we're ready to move to the next

I'm going to turn it over to Ena to introduce the

MR. AGBEDIA:

Thank you Louise.

The next

19

question we've already discussed a lot of it, so just a

20

little segue into it.

21

practices for developing probabilistic and stochastic

22

methods for estimating these typical planning inputs,

23

including through the use of expert developed climate

24

scenarios such as the Representative Concentration Pathway

25

scenarios for baseline CO2 projects developed by the

The question is Are there best

63

1

intergovernmental panel on climate change?

2

question to Doctor Easterling.

3

DR. EASTERLING:

I'll direct this

Yeah we worry in fact a lot

4

about it.

5

these downscaled simulations, we realize the larger is you

6

know these are made up of a number of like 50, 75

7

simulations.

8

start with slightly different initial conditions, and when

9

it runs out through the end of the 21st Century you get a

10
11

You know one thing that we do to obtain within

So when you run a climate model you know you

slightly different result.
So you begin to bound sort of get an idea of the

12

uncertainty, so if you're looking at you know how the

13

climate is going to evolve in the 21st Century, you know

14

there is two major sources of uncertainty.

15

the model of uncertainty, and then there's the pathway is it

16

going to be RCP 4.5, you know where we have emissions,

17

continued in the middle of the 20th century, continuing to

18

increase and then kind of level off.

19

You know there's

Or is it going to be sort of the business as

20

usual which is the 8.5 where we have emissions just

21

continuing out to the end of the 21st Century which is very

22

sort of risk-based planning, but is that realistic you know?

23

My expectation or hope is that we're going to be closer to

24

4.5, but I may be wrong.

25

know an idea of uncertainty by using the fact that even LOCA

But what you do is you can get you

64

1

has you know you don't get just one time series of

2

temperature.

3

series because you used a number of different models in

4

there.

5

You know you get a number of like 30 times

So you can use that to run your whatever model

6

your impact model is and get an idea of the uncertainty of

7

it as well.

8

if the uncertainty is really small you can have a lot more

9

confidence in that output that final result and that you

10

So which is really important you know, because

have a very wide uncertainty.

11

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Does anyone

12

else want to respond to this question?

13

about it a lot.

14

Ena would you like to introduce the next question?

15

Okay.

I know we've talked

I think we've got that one covered.

MR. AGBEDIA:

Sure.

So the next question is are

16

there expert-developed climate change scenarios, including

17

downscaled ones for smaller regions, that can be

18

incorporated into the planning process at all relevant

19

levels?

20

need from government, academic, or other entities with

21

expertise in climate change and meteorology to develop

22

effective vulnerability assessments?

23

question to Miss Hogle.

24
25

What additional information if any do utilities

MS. HOGLE:

Thanks.

I'll direct this

I mean I think that one

thing is a kind of shared understanding and discussion

65

1

around risk tolerance, and I think I mentioned that earlier.

2

The California Public Utilities Commission has directed us

3

to use the RCP 8.5 pathway, and so in our analysis and so

4

you know we have that kind of benchmark, and that's the data

5

that we're incorporating into our decision-making.

6

And then you know what you do with that data you

7

know, that's kind of another set of decisions that need to

8

be made right, and planning that you need to do.

9

example, you know if we want to update our design standard

So for

10

for heatwaves to be one that's updated for you know,

11

heatwaves that we might experience in 2050, or a heatwave

12

that we might experience in 2030.

13

You know that's where you get into that risk

14

tolerance, what it is that you want to plan for.

And then

15

also on an annual basis incorporating the results of your

16

current vulnerability assessment into your -- you know the

17

annual asset management plans that we do, and then of course

18

before you put something in the ground you're going to want

19

to make sure that it's going to be built to withstand the

20

40, 50, 60 year lifespan, but utility assets typically

21

enjoy.

22

And then we also you know seek to incorporate the

23

results of our analysis in our risk models, so we understand

24

what kind of the overall vulnerability is but then we need

25

to incorporate this into the risk models to then understand

66

1

what the impacts and the consequences are, you know what's

2

the impact to the risks in terms of frequency, and then what

3

are the consequences from a customer perspective if these

4

were to materialize?

5

And then finally I'll just note you know we use

6

it for decision-making in terms of our extreme weather

7

planning right?

8

all utilities, you know, very robust emergency response

9

function that is prepared not just to respond to

So we conduct drills, and we have just like

10

emergencies, but also in advance kind of drill through

11

those.

12

And so we're going to use this data to inform

13

different scenarios to plan for kind of that cascading

14

compounding event.

15

I think more broadly, you know, it will be helpful at a

16

regional level to start kind of doing that together and

17

aligning upon what we think our shared risk tolerances, how

18

these things would play out.

19

So those are things that we can do, but

You know, kind of the way that we do resource

20

adequacy today for example, you know doesn't take into

21

account kind of the different guidelines in the states and

22

you know what regional or compounding effects of a broad

23

swarth of the country could look like.

24

So I think that's something that needs to be done

25

you know beyond we're already doing these in California, but

67

1

it will be helpful to expand upon that on the regional level

2

which I think a lot of my colleagues have already kind of

3

mentioned.

4
5
6

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Is there

anyone else who would like to speak to this question?
MR. STENCLIK:

I guess I can jump in on that very

7

quickly here.

8

information.

9

to David's comments, but just the ability to translate that

10

climate trend data into the raw inputs into that are used by

11

power systems, planners, for resource adequacy analysis, for

12

higher peak planning, all that type of work.

13

I think one thing in terms of additional
I've brought it up once before when responding

I think there's a gap there, and I can't tell you

14

how valuable tools like the national solar radiation

15

database, like you know, can use no matter where I go to do

16

a study for a client.

17

I can go into a consistent tool to download the data in a

18

very consistent way across many years of chronological data,

19

and it's not just again the weather data, it's the weather

20

data coupled in a way to translate that to production

21

profiles that ultimately you use on the power sector.

22

If I'm in California or in New York,

So I think David, you've brought up the tool that

23

you all are working on that would let you go in and kind of

24

develop a scenario using the larger dataset, the larger

25

modeling tools that you already have available.

I think

68

1

tools like that are critical because you know somebody

2

brought up before, and David maybe it's you, about how a

3

small utility, or a small entity or developer might not have

4

the funding to go do a full climate study.

5

I can't tell you how many times we've gone out to

6

partner with somebody to do something like that and it's

7

like well it's great, but it's three -- the total budget of

8

the power system side on the weather.

9

So having these national datasets are really

10

important, and are a way to not only allow practitioners to

11

implement this data, and implement these trends, but do so

12

in a way that's consistent from region to region, and

13

especially when you start to go not just to do a study for a

14

utility in New York, but say well how does New York look

15

using the same data in ISO New England and PJM and Ontario,

16

and making sure that you're not just making generic

17

assumptions outside of the region of focus, but you're

18

using consistent time synchronized weather data across all

19

those regions.

20

I think it's important for just weather data

21

generally, you know, so it's certainly obviously the climate

22

change issue it's important, but it becomes increasingly

23

important with the resource mix change and climate change as

24

well.

25

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Undersecretary

69

1
2

Chang I see you raised your hand.
MS. CHANG:

Yes.

I just wanted to echo how

3

important that is to have a consistent set of national and

4

regional and detailed data.

5

know we already talked about how wind and solar and load are

6

all related to climate and weather, but also hydro, and for

7

all the regions that rely on hydroelectric supplies, you

8

know severe drought is going to affect that, severe snowfall

9

in the winter is going to affect that.

10

Just to give you an example you

And all of those things I think will be

11

significantly important.

12

the past, but now I think with more dynamic changes in the

13

future it will become even more important.

14

Massachusetts has engaged -- I just want to ask because some

15

of the previous questions that were raised by other

16

panelists, we have been engaged in research teams to

17

downscale climate projections, temperature and precipitation

18

for two of the RCP scenarios, 4.5 and 8.5 based on global

19

climate circulation models.

20

It has always been important in

Now

I do think probabilistic methods for estimating

21

certain parameters will be important but it's really it's

22

more important to actually understand when do we need it and

23

how are we going to use that information?

24

can imagine using probabilistic approaches you can just get

25

stuck in never-ending analyses.

Otherwise as you

70

1

So I do think it's important to think

2

probabilistically just like many panelists have said before.

3

It's not only the average that we're planning against, its

4

actually some of the extremes.

5

how extreme shall we go out?

6

or 1 in 10 years?

7

to 1 in 10 years in the power sector, but what does that

8

actually mean given the climate uncertainties going forward

9

I think is really important.

10

And even in that question

Is it like a 1 in 100 years,

You know we have a tradition of planning

And just as the insurance industry will tell us,

11

you know the more uncertainty there is the more valuable

12

insurance is.

13

infrastructure investments are like insurance products for

14

this industry.

15

before transmission can be seen as an insurance against

16

severe events.

17

different parts of the country can be seen as insurance

18

against severe events.

19

So then we have to think about what kind of

And I would say you know Lisa had mentioned

Storage, or different types of storage in

So I think that will definitely affect the way we

20

plan into the future.

And then I want to share a few things

21

with you if you don't mind pulling up the slide, and if we

22

can go to slide 4.

23

in the other slides, but I prepared three slides which I

24

think will be interesting because and as you know as staff

25

pulled that up.

I don't need to get into all the details

71

1
2

Will I be able to see it if you pull it up?

I

don't know.

3

MS. NUTTER:

4

MS. CHANG:

Yes you will one second.
Okay.

No problem.

I just want to

5

say that we have a resilient mass action team in

6

Massachusetts.

7

implement the state hazard mitigation adaptation plan led by

8

my office and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency,

9

which is a state level like FEMA but MEMA.

10

It's an interagency team working to

And staff by climate change coordinators from

11

each executive office, and they've been working for the last

12

year and a half on this effort, and through agency working

13

groups they hold advisory groups and public comments.

14

RMAT, we call it the RMAT, the resilient MA action team has

15

developed an easy to use interactive web-based tool that

16

utilizes the best available climate data that we have, and

17

some of that came from NOAA.

The

18

And provide immediate results and recommendations

19

to inform the second piece that I talked about earlier which

20

is the physical infrastructure that we build.

21

actually being proposed -- it just got launched as a data

22

model from data tool just a couple of months ago.

23

is one of the very first of its kind.

24
25

And this is

This tool

It's of course using site specific questions and
location information and provides specific projects, a

72

1

preliminary climate risk rating and recommendation, and how

2

to increase the resiliency of project design through

3

targeted planning horizon return periods, design criteria

4

and methodologies for utilizing state-wide climate data.

5

With this information we can better inform

6

climate smart capital planning so it's not just the utility

7

industry, but it's all capital planning, particular

8

infrastructure, and ensure our investments are you know

9

assessed not only with dollars, but also all the investments

10

made by states or states that have funded certain projects,

11

or were thinking even with ratepayers money so they're

12

regulated assets, to increase our climate resiliency and to

13

better understand the vulnerability, and to serve to enhance

14

the local resilience that all of our infrastructure will

15

face.

16

You know next slide please.

I just want to share

17

with you a few slides here.

18

This is the input page where a user would input specific

19

project information.

20

kind of a thing.

21

is, where the project is located, and a whole bunch of

22

parameters about the project.

23

It kind of looks like this.

It has kind of a question and answer

You know you get to say what the project

And then the next slide please.

It will give you

24

-- I know it's very hard to see, and I don't mean for you to

25

read everything, but the idea here is it gives an output

73

1

about the climate related risks associated with certain

2

infrastructure investment, or it could be a building, it

3

could be a bridge, it could be anything that's you know

4

comparable investments.

5

And they will give the user not only the risks.

6

You see sort of the yellow and the red, you might not have

7

an easy time reading the words, but the level of risks

8

associated with climate.

9

about how to mitigate that exposure which is on the

10
11

And then it gives some suggestions

right-hand side.
I just want to share this with you.

It's a whole

12

bunch of very exciting new features were added.

13

doing a stakeholder sort of beta testing process with people

14

who will be using this tool.

15

permitting of certain projects in the state, and business

16

you know above and beyond energy projects.

17

We're now

We may also be using this in

But we are also thinking about potentially using

18

this type of tool for siting purposes for energy projects.

19

So I just want to pause there.

20

down the slide, thank you.

Thank you and you can pull

21

MS. NUTTER:

22

Easterling I believe you're next.

23

Thank you very much.

DR. EASTERLING:

Sure.

Doctor

So I just want to mention

24

so how to arrive at the extremes came up a little bit

25

earlier, and so we've heard in NOAA atlas 14, that's the

74

1

atlas that we produce that is used by civil engineers to

2

look at okay, a design to the 100 year 24 hour landfall

3

amount, or something like that.

4

So if you get a location that says you know based

5

on current data the 24 hour 100 year landfall amount is X.

6

It may be six inches or something like that.

7

more robust signals that we see in climate models for the

8

future is an increase of atmospheric water vapor because as

9

temperatures go up, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere

10

will go up, and that moisture is then available to rain out

11

as heavy rainfall events.

12

So we've seen an increase in that.

But one of the

Especially

13

the northeast has been probably the hardest hit in terms of

14

an increase in the landfall amounts.

15

know for each location has a sort of a okay what's the 10

16

year, 24 hour rainfall amount.

17

the 100 year and so forth.

18

NOAA atlas 14 has you

What's the 24, the 20 year,

And these are used by several engineers for

19

design.

Well DOD, Department of Defense was very interested

20

in how these threshold amounts might change in the future

21

and so a colleague of mine and I had a project to basically

22

take the atlas 14 and then use climate models to provide an

23

estimate for what we think those rainfall amounts will be in

24

the future, or 20 years in the future, 50 years in the

25

future, 75 years in the future and so forth.

75

1

So you know our current 24 hour 100 year rainfall

2

event in the future it may be six inches now, it may be 8

3

1/2 or 9 inches in the future for a given location.

4

actually have produced this, and we now are about to put out

5

where you could actually go in and it will bring up you know

6

our map, and it says okay, I want to look at New York City.

7

Okay what's the 24 hour 100 year rainfall amount

So we

8

going to be in 2050 or 2075?

So we use climate models,

9

basically the increased atmosphere of water vapor to try to

10

estimate how those amounts will change, plus you get an

11

uncertainty based on the fact that we use multiple climate

12

models.

13

So it may be what's now 6 inches may be 8 inches

14

plus or minus a half an inch.

15

mention that.

16

probably not as much for the power industry, but I guess

17

with hydropower because some of those amounts are actually

18

PMP, probable maximum precipitation which are used in dam

19

design.

20
21
22
23
24
25

So I just wanted to kind of

That's another tool that we are developing,

You have to have a spillway to be able to account
for that actual amount of rainfall you might get.
MS. NUTTER:
your hand is raised.

Thank you very much.

Do you have a follow-up statement?

MR. STENCLIK:
taken that down.

Mr. Stenclik

My apologies.

I must have not

76

1

MS. NUTTER:

That's fine.

In that case I'll go

2

to my colleague for a question you wish to ask Rahim would

3

you like to speak?

4

MR. AMERKHAIL:

Yes thank you.

So this question

5

regards the downscaling.

6

couple of panelists now is that their state took a very

7

proactive role in taking raw data from where it's generated

8

and translating it into data that's useful to the utility,

9

and I heard Doctor Easterling offer for those utilities that

10

maybe don't have it, a state that has the wherewithal to do

11

that perhaps, or the interest that they could step up.

12

What I think I've heard from a

So I just had a quick question.

Is there a way

13

for Doctor Easterling, is there a way for utilities who may

14

be watching this webcast to contact NOAA and explore the

15

options for getting this type of data directly from NOAA?

16

Thank you.

17

DR. EASTERLING:

Yeah.

I mean I guess I would be

18

the first person to start with and I can certainly direct

19

people to the right place.

20

me here in Ashville, North Carolina, at NCI, so that would

21

be another connection into NOAA is Adam as well.

22

And Adam Smith, Adam works with

So I don't know if you can put my email address

23

up there, or something like that and I'll be glad to if I

24

can't answer it or provide that information, I can certainly

25

point you to the right person.

77

1
2
3

MR. AMERKHAIL:

Thank you.

That's helpful thank

you.
MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

And I believe

4

we might have some questions from some of our Commissioners.

5

Do you want to let Commissioners have questions that they

6

would like to ask?

7
8
9
10

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:
if it's appropriate to pop in.
MS. NUTTER:

I have a couple questions

Can you hear me Louise?

Yes.

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Great.

Well thank you.

11

This is really interesting, and I want to underscore

12

Undersecretary Chang's comment that I haven't heard this

13

conversation in this manner, and it's really an important

14

starting point, or continuing point, at least in the FERC

15

policy context.

16

I'm hearing about two kinds of planning. One is

17

kind of physical vulnerability planning, and then one is the

18

more traditional electrical system planning that we have

19

thought more about in the FERC context.

20

And at the beginning several of you have

21

mentioned this, and at the beginning talked about the

22

relationship between the two, or the lack therefore as well

23

as any changes I think Miss Webb referred to changes on the

24

system planning side that it's not just putting the right

25

inputs in, but it's that some of those processes need to be

78

1

changed.

2

So the first part of my question is can you the

3

panelists who are interested speak to the appropriateness of

4

the existing regional -- let's start with regional and we

5

can go up to interregional, or down to local way that we do

6

transmission system planning, and then I'll ask a question

7

about the data we use after that.

8

MS. NUTTER:

9

to respond please raise your hand.

10

And the panelists if you would like
Mr. Stenclik I see that

your hand has been raised.

11

MR. STENCLIK:

Sure.

I'll take a first stab at

12

this.

13

contacts.

14

change there's a lot that needs to be done on resource

15

adequacy topics and the methodology given the change in the

16

resource mix, and the reliance on the weather.

17

I think there's a few things I'll touch on the system
One is regardless, again regardless of climate

So as you can tell from a lot of my comments I've

18

taken the approach of kind of a resource adequacy analysis

19

perspective and how climate change interacts with that in

20

terms of reliability.

21

so and my comments are stemming from a task force I lead

22

with the energy systems integration group.

23

Obviously, reliability is very broad,

Specifically around how methodologies should be

24

rethought around resource adequacy planning.

A lot of that

25

is you know certainly better accounting of the underlying

79

1

weather, needing to evaluate a full year of the operation,

2

not just our conventional peak load periods, so I think

3

that's a really big takeaway that is also very applicable in

4

the climate context.

5

Looking across an entire year is not just the

6

historical you know peak risk periods, or peak load periods

7

that are going to be the most challenging, but another thing

8

that you brought up Commissioner Clements about the

9

vulnerability planning and how those aren't linked together.

10

I think you know I still view the resource adequacy, the

11

probability assessment using the weather observations is

12

very important and should continue.

13

We should incorporate a climate trend to that,

14

but we also have to go one step further I think and just do

15

a vulnerability assessment to say what -- to evaluate what

16

if scenarios, you know what if a four day low wind and solar

17

event were to occur on the system, does that impact system

18

reliability?

19

So as opposed to the conventional approach of

20

just doing the probabilistic inputs at the model and seeing

21

what the expectation of reliability out of is kind going the

22

inverse and saying you know evaluate a few what if scenarios

23

explicitly, and if they have a material impact on

24

reliability, then going back to the climate folks and the

25

meteorological folks and saying is this plausible in the

80

1

future?

2

Is it plausible for me to lost 30 percent of my

3

gas fleet because temperatures dropped to X, or is it

4

plausible for there to be a four day sustained low solar and

5

wind output?

6

that type of event occurring.

7

after the Texas event in February is how do you ask me to do

8

a resource adequacy analysis in Texas ahead of that?

9

Then you can almost assign a probability of
I think a big takeaway for me

There's no way I would have caught the magnitude

10

of that event.

11

step away from and say you know we have to go one step

12

further than just conventional resource adequacy planning,

13

and do these what if scenarios, and then work backwards to

14

say what's the likelihood of that occurring.

15

And I think that's an important thing to

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Commissioner

16

Clements, if you will work through the panelists who wish to

17

respond if that's all right.

18

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

19

MS. NUTTER:

20

hands raised.

21

Barton?

22

Okay.

Great.

So I believe we have several

I believe the next person to speak is Ms.

MS. BARTON:

Thank you.

So first and foremost I

23

do want to say I agree with everything that Derek just said.

24

Getting resource adequacy right, looking at it differently,

25

looking at how resource adequacy can be bolstered by

81

1

companies with generation at the other side of the scenes is

2

really, really important for us to start to consider.

3

We also have to make sure that we're not throwing

4

away the deterministic planning methodologies that we have

5

in play right now.

6

know looking at it from a peak demand standpoint.

7

at it by taking different assets out, and doing N Minus 1,

8

Minus 1 type planning.

9

So we designed the system based on you
We look

That's all well and good, but now what you're

10

hearing is that we have to complement that, so we have to

11

layer on probabilistic planning.

12

endless host of scenarios, but a couple of scenarios, and I

13

think it can be achieved when we take that downscaling of

14

some of these climate views, and I will say this -- we'll

15

need to be using the same one, or similar ones because what

16

we don't want to do is have all of the different utilities

17

out there, all of the different RTOs arguing about what's

18

the right study that we should be using.

19

By not looking at an

It's important for us to use the same study

20

because then you're going to have at least similar views,

21

similar analyses.

22

transmission for example constructive, is we have to go to

23

our state regulators.

24

need.

25

As you know, how we actually get

We have to show determination of

If my determination of need is different a

82

1

neighboring utilities determination of need, it just

2

introduces unnecessary confusion and that's why I think that

3

it's a fairly systematic methodology that we can use.

4

mean every utility can sit there and say you know given a

5

particular downscaling scenario, what's going to happen to

6

my assets?

7

I

And one example might be I've got a 100 mile line

8

that's 70 years old.

It's going to come down.

What are the

9

ramifications of that being out for an extended period of

10

time because it would take me several months to restore.

11

You can answer it again at that utility level,

12

and then you look at it from an RTO level, and again just

13

looking to see how can we get some no regret solutions or no

14

regret support at the seams, which really can be done is you

15

say we want to have a certain minimum transfer capability so

16

that resource adequacy we can lean on each other.

17

So for generation diversity we can lean on each

18

other.

19

each other and that becomes the insurance model that Judy

20

was talking about.

21

For system reliability and resiliency we can lean on

MS. NUTTER:

22

believe you're next.

23

MS. WEBB:

Thank you so much.

Yeah thank you.

Miss Webb I

I agree with the

24

previous two panelists in that we need to supplement the

25

existing sort of planning approach, particularly the

83

1

resource adequacy planning approach with this more climate

2

specific form of planning.

3

And the Department of Energy has referred to that

4

as climate resilience planning which includes a

5

vulnerability component, looking at to the previous

6

panelist's point, looking at how specific assets and

7

operations will be impacted by specific climate variables.

8

And we do that using all of the things that we

9

talked about, the downscale, the probabilistic models, but

10

it needs to be a very sort of location specific, and asset

11

specific analysis.

12

level.

13

was mentioned earlier in the work that NYISO has done.

And that needs to happen at the utility

It can also happen at the system operator level that

14

But at the RTO/ISO level, to inform those other

15

planning processes, so that we have a better understanding

16

of how these multiple climate impacts which could occur

17

simultaneously and affect multiple parts of the system,

18

where those risks are and how they actually manifest.

19

So it's really sort of supplementing those

20

existing planning processes with a more specific planning

21

process that some utilities and some system operators have

22

staff to do, but certainly relatively few have done that

23

sort of analysis.

24

operators that have done that sort of analysis -- the

25

analysis has been very limited, or has had real flaws.

And a lot of the utilities and system

84

1

For example, relying on historic weather data,

2

which as we've talked about a lot isn't a good indicator of

3

future conditions.

4

climate variables and so missing those sort of compounding

5

cascading impacts that we talked about earlier.

6

Only looking at one climate, or two

And so it needs to be a very comprehensive

7

review, a specific review, and relying on that forward

8

looking localized data.

9

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

10

Chang would you like to go next?

11

MS. CHANG:

Yeah.

Undersecretary

I couldn't articulate it

12

better than the previous two panelists.

13

everything they've said, but I want to bring it back to the

14

you know Commissioner your question about at the regional

15

level.

16

regions that have an RTO/ISO could play.

17

of all just having this dialogue already shows that we're

18

planning you know proactively.

19

I'll just echo

I do think there's a significant role that those
For example, first

We're thinking about planning in a proactive way.

20

I can't emphasize the importance of that.

I think we have

21

to plan in a proactive way.

22

done that yet, so we do need to look at scenarios, even

23

without climate risks, we need to take a scenario-based

24

proactive way to plan the system, whether it's resource

25

adequacy or transmission planning, and I do agree with

I don't think New England has

85

1

previous panelists it will be best if we can use consistent

2

set of data, internally consistent set of data, so that

3

we're not using you know a summer in a different year with a

4

different winter and the hydro is not consistent with the

5

solar and the wind.

6

I think we need all of that in a consistent

7

manner and ideally we would love to be able to do that on a

8

national level, and then each region RTO/ISOs can use that

9

data at the regional stage, or the regional granularity.

10

And then I think in addition to scenario-based

11

which is the deterministic approach, we also do need to

12

think about the tail end of that distribution, or sort of

13

that 1 in 10, 1 in 100 risk, and really ask ourselves how --

14

this is not just like billed to that 100, 1 in 10 or 1 in

15

100, but really ask ourselves the potential costs of those

16

extreme events and compare to what kind of investments we

17

might need to prevent or at least mitigate, those extreme

18

events.

19

I don't think we do that today.

I don't think we

20

do that adequately.

I think we do need to think about those

21

extreme events, and maybe there are some insurance products

22

which means really certain smaller investments, or

23

investments in either grid or storage, or interregional

24

connections that will immediately help mitigate severe

25

weather dependent events in the future.

86

1

So I think it's a combination of this scenario

2

deterministic approach, but also think about the outliers,

3

the outer edges of those risks and buy our insurance now so

4

that we don't experience those ERCOT-like experiences every

5

two to three years.

6

think these severe events will occur more and more

7

frequently.

8
9

I mean with the climate forecast I

Thank you.
MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Miss Hogle I

believe you're next.

10

MS. HOGLE:

Yeah I agree with what everyone else

11

has said.

12

on the transmission side, you know obviously resource

13

planning and transmission are inextricably linked, and so

14

you know kind of the typical outlook or planning process of

15

10 years could be constraining.

16

I think the only thing I would just add here is

And you know at least for us in California CAISO

17

has recently begun an initiative to look at a 20 year

18

transmission outlook that you know can help inform and

19

facilitate consideration of like larger lead time projects

20

that can accommodate investments and support greater system

21

diversity and resilience in a high penetration renewable

22

future as well as have the climate related benefits, getting

23

back to the insurance point that my colleagues have raised.

24
25

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

your hand is still raised.

Miss Barton

Do you wish to speak again?

87

1

Miss Barton?

2

MS. BARTON:

Okay sorry.

3

MS. NUTTER:

Commissioner Clements did you have

4

any follow-up questions you wish to ask?

5

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Yes.

I have one

6

follow-up and then I'll save in case others want to ask

7

questions.

8

Barton you mentioned interregional transmission, the

9

availability to lean on your neighbors.

10

There was a lot of good input there.

Miss

And I'm wondering if you can say a little bit

11

more about how interregional planning frameworks can be

12

adjusted to better aim at improving system reliability and

13

resilience to extreme weather, and I think the most recent

14

example that people keep talking about is the fact that in

15

the worst part of the Texas mid-central extreme cold in

16

February, MISO was importing 13,000 megawatts of resources,

17

of supply and also exporting another 3 or 5, I don't

18

remember the exact number, the SPP and that was an important

19

part of their reliability approach.

20

In particular, you mentioned interregional

21

transfer capability and I'm wondering if you could speak to

22

that you know, potential reliability standards related to

23

that, or other thinking around ensuring sufficient transfer

24

capability across regions.

25

MS. BARTON:

Sure.

I mean one of the ways that

88

1

you can do it is you can sit there and say that you want to

2

from a resource adequacy standpoint, be able to rely on X

3

percent from a neighboring region.

4

would actually be building less you would be saving more

5

money.

6

I mean in the end you

If we actually did lean on each other more.

We

7

actually have the utilities who are on both sides of that

8

border, both we have two in SPP and one in ERCOT, Texas, and

9

if we had a better ability within Texas to import generation

10

from SPP and other regions, we would have been in a better

11

situation.

12

We would not have been that dire.
We saw, if you really look at a snapshot in time

13

what was PJM's generation portfolio looking like, everything

14

was running as normal.

15

SPP's wind production was actually outperforming what they

16

expected it to be.

17

that we have more variable resources.

18

MISO was able to help SPP a bit, and

But it's really just getting at the fact

When you have more variable resources you have

19

less control.

20

your quiver to be able to address that.

21

diversity of renewable generation would help that, and

22

that's how you do it, is basically increasing those --

23

strengthening those seams.

24
25

It means you need to have something else in
And having greater

Because right now you know I've been in this
industry for decades upon decades it seems.

And I've been

89

1

talking a lot about transmission planning, and I've been

2

talking a lot about interregional planning, and yet there

3

really has never been interregional planning.

4

And that's something that with the changing needs

5

of the system we have to fundamentally change that because

6

customers and community's expectations of the grid are

7

changing.

8

ever happen again.

9

out what are those no regret solutions, and I think that

10
11

We can't afford what happened in ERCOT, Texas to
We really have to sit there and figure

that's one of them.
COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

And do you have a

12

distinction in between how those teams worked in an RTO to

13

RTO function versus an RTO to non-RTO setting?

14

MS. BARTON:

I really haven't, but you can really

15

just implement it from you know I think if FERC were to

16

desire to issue an order you could do it a couple of

17

different ways right?

18

whether it's an RTO or a non-RTO utility for those you know

19

two to get together, and to determine what is the

20

appropriate transfer capability between those regions.

21

You could basically sit there and say

And then certainly it does get complicated, it's

22

a little bit easier when we're talking RTO to RTO, but at

23

least what I've found in the past is if there's a timeframe

24

that folks need to get back, if there's a solution set that

25

needs to be solved for, then you'll set some movement there.

90

1
2

But I think absent FERC pushing on that, I think
it won't happen to be honest.

3
4
5

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Thank you.

Thanks

Louise.
MS. NUTTER:

Thanks very much and is there anyone

6

else who would like to speak on this topic?

7

your hand if you would like to do so.

8

will turn it over to my colleague Ena who will introduce the

9

next question.

10

MS. CHANG:

Okay.

Please raise
Seeing none I

Actually I just want to add one note

11

to what Miss Barton just said.

12

thing really.

13

planning and actual building interconnectors, even for the

14

regions that are already interconnected -- ERCOT to the rest

15

of the country.

16

It just amplifies the same

It is extremely important for interregional

But while we in Massachusetts looked at the

17

decarbonization pathways in every future scenario we need

18

more interconnections with our neighbors, and that's -- it's

19

just a capture of that diverse, even if nothing else we want

20

to be able to capture that diverse resource portfolio that

21

Ms. Barton talked about.

22
23
24
25

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stenclik

do you also wish to respond?
MR. STENCLIK:
on the transmission.

Yeah I have one last thing to add

It's really thinking about

91

1

transmission more as a reliability resource or as a capacity

2

resource.

3

often fall into the trough of just evaluating a transmission

4

project based on the production cost benefits or to relieve

5

the congestion, and we fall short of really looking at other

6

value stacking, predominantly probably the largest one there

7

being the ability to look at transmission as a capacity

8

resource in bringing in the reliability benefits.

9

I think traditional transmission planning, we

So I think very similar to how we've all become

10

accustomed to value stacking storage across a lot of

11

different services, you can take that same approach and

12

people do take that same approach on transmission.

13

really valuable to look at transmission not just as a way to

14

lower operating costs which it does, but and access

15

renewables, but also as a capacity resource.

16

I think

And in some of that is building new lines.

17

of it is just the institutional friction between these

18

different authorities.

19

and each ISO wants to make sure they can maintain

20

reliability kind of by themselves, or domestically.

21

Some

I completely understand each utility

But using the reliance of neighboring systems and

22

making sure that when you do the resource adequacy analysis

23

you do a full system, or full interregional analysis that

24

doesn't simplify the assumption of okay, how much can we

25

lean on our neighbors, but look at the neighboring utilities

92

1

and neighboring ISOs in the same probabilistic manner that

2

you're evaluating your own system with.

3

critical as well.

4

MS. NUTTER:

I think that's

Thank you very much.

Was there

5

anyone else who wishes to speak on this topic?

6

any additional hands raised, so Ena if you would like to?

7

MR AGBEDIA:

Sure thanks Louise.

I don't see

So the next

8

question is How should climate vulnerability assessments be

9

translated into actions that promote least-cost outcomes for

10

consumers?

11

lead from identification of a climate vulnerability to least

12

cost solution that address that vulnerability?

13

this question to Miss DesRoches.

14

What are specific steps and considerations that

MS. DESROCHES:

Great thanks.

I'll direct

So clearly you

15

have to look at the cost of multiple solutions and I think

16

this has been brought up a few times.

17

we look at the wide array of what the client projections

18

might be saying mid-century and in particular, in the end of

19

century.

20

That's important as

To just put that in context in New York City sea

21

level rise, if you look at the full spectrum of the RCP's

22

goes from about 10 inches to 72 inches.

23

range.

24

be, what are we buying down?

25

down and how conservative do we need to be for each set of

That's a pretty big

And so you know as we look at what the costs will
How much risk are we buying

93

1

solutions -- both at the asset level, but also at the

2

systems level.

3

I think this can't be decoupled from the

4

investments we're going to make for decarbonization right?

5

So you know we can very simply think everything on the

6

coastline needs to be elevated or moved, or we can think

7

about when we move to a system that's powered by offshore

8

winds, solar and storage, how do we locate and build out

9

over time those assets to actually be more resilient to

10

climate change?

11

and what's unfortunately what ends up happening is you have

12

some of the clean energy movement and it's fantastic and

13

we're moving as aggressively as possible, but we aren't at

14

the same time integrating those future weather conditions

15

and that resiliency that needs to happen.

16

It needs to be thought of at the same time,

So you know I would say that as we're costing and

17

looking at investments in the clean energy, we have to

18

couple those with the resiliency investments, and really

19

look at what that range of investments is going to cost,

20

both to integrate the clean energy into the existing system,

21

and improve that system while we're doing it.

22

And to what level?

So that makes it complicated,

23

but then can that be upgraded over time?

24

build today for 2100 projections that are at the very high

25

end, or is there a way to do sort of interim level

Do we have to

94

1

adaptation that are flexible enough, or technologies that we

2

assume will come that we can install in the second half of

3

the century to make those assets stronger.

4

I don't have easy examples of how to do that, but

5

if we don't start thinking about it that way today, we're

6

going to transition the energy system in a renewable system

7

without having properly accounted for the cost of the

8

resiliency investments that need to happen.

9
10
11

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

Miss Webb I

believe you're next.
MS.

WEBB:

Yeah thank you.

I fully agree with

12

everything that was just said.

13

looking for opportunities to build in resilience at the

14

outset to avoid costly retrofits and hardening in the

15

future, and also looking at sort of flexible resilience

16

measures that are adaptable in the future.

17

We should be absolutely

I would just add a couple of points which I think

18

sort of build on that and resonate with that.

19

the evaluation of resilience measures really needs to take

20

into account the full suite of those measures.

21

One is that

Often when we focus on sort of traditional or

22

legacy approaches like investments in the capacity or asset

23

hardening, but there's a whole load of other things that can

24

be done as was said building in that resilience up front,

25

looking at customer oriented, or customer focused resilience

95

1

measures, the distributed storage, demand response et

2

cetera.

3

And when we're comparing those different measures

4

looking across those different measures we need to take into

5

account their relative climate benefits and costs, so

6

evaluating those resilience measures through really a

7

climate change lens.

8

point, but it's worth restating that entities really should

9

not be responding to the risks posed by climate change by

You know it's perhaps an obvious

10

engaging in activities that themselves contribute to

11

climate change.

12

So we want to avoid these sorts of now-adapted

13

outcomes, now adaptation outcomes where responding to the

14

symptom of a particular risk in a way that exacerbates its

15

underlying cause.

16

measures we should be thinking about them in terms of their

17

contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, those that

18

increase greenhouse gas emissions really shouldn't be

19

pursued, they're really not climate resilience measures.

20

So when we're thinking about resilience

And related to that I would just say that I think

21

we need to explore new tools for comparing and evaluating

22

the resilience measures.

23

cost benefit analysis which can be used, but has some

24

difficulties in evaluating resilience measures specifically.

25

We tend to rely very heavily on

It can be difficult to identify and accurately

96

1

quantify some of the benefits of those measures in part

2

because they depend on future outcomes, future climate

3

outcomes which aren't 100 percent certain.

4

So again that doesn't mean that entities can't or

5

shouldn't respond to the risks of climate change, or

6

shouldn't be taking measures to improve climate resilience,

7

but it does mean that we need to think about new approaches

8

for evaluating those different measures.

9

So there's been various proposals put forward.

10

One that's often referred to as the robust decision-making,

11

or RDM framework, which evaluates resilience investments, or

12

resilience measures under a range of possible future

13

scenarios to look at what perform best across a range of

14

outcomes.

15

incorporating flexible pathways where we take these sort of

16

no or low regrets measures now and then look at other

17

measures in the future when we have greater certainty about

18

what future impacts will be.

19

Also those mentioned earlier of sort of

But there really needs to be this wide-ranging

20

review of all of the available options through that climate

21

change lens, and with that flexibility built in thanks.

22
23
24
25

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

I think Miss

Hogle you're next.
MS. HOGLE:

Thanks.

I just wanted to provide an

example of you know utilizing new tools and ways to evaluate

97

1

these investments, but before I do so I just want to say you

2

know the question in and of itself in some ways has a bit of

3

a false premise because we know that you know planning and

4

making these investments early is less expensive for our

5

customers, than having the event occur and then having to

6

rebuild and respond after the fact.

7

We heard about the trillion dollars of investment

8

that we've had to make in climate driven events at the

9

beginning part of this conference.

But that being said, I

10

completely agree and I can provide an example where you know

11

in California in our service territory, especially in the

12

remote areas that we serve that are very prone to wildfires,

13

we've been able to evaluate you know the costs of

14

maintaining let's say a line that you know could be a

15

couple miles long, but is serving just a few customers on

16

the other end of it, and you know looking at what are the

17

insurance costs, what are the costs associated with you know

18

maintaining that line and doing the budget clearances, the

19

labor costs and everything else.

20

And we've actually found that it's a better

21

option, it's more resilient -- climate resilient, because

22

you reduce the risk of wildfires by removing that line, and

23

it penciled out from a cost perspective to just serve those

24

four or five customers with the remote grid that has a

25

combination of you know solar and battery and backup natural

98

1

gas or diesel when necessary.

2

So I think that you can kind of use all the tools

3

available like definitely do a comprehensive cost benefit

4

analysis of these investments and then find that you know at

5

least in this case serving these customers in an entirely

6

different way than we typically would was the right thing to

7

do, and we plan to do more of those.

8
9

So I just wanted to provide that example to
follow-up on my colleague's comments.

10
11

MS. NUTTER:

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stenclik I

believe you're next.

12

MR. STENCLIK:

Yeah thanks.

I think I'll come at

13

this again not surprisingly from our resource adequacy

14

angle.

15

need to change with increased, or with the changing resource

16

mix and climate change, but so do the metrics, and right now

17

in most places across North America we rely on a 1 day in 10

18

year loss of load expectation as the primary, or the not

19

often cases the sole resource adequacy or reliability

20

metric, and that's how we design our capacity markets.

21

And really I've talked a lot today about how methods

That's how we design our primary serve margin,

22

and fundamentally how we procure resources to meet our

23

reliability requirements.

24

changing resource mix with climate change, a loss of load

25

expectation is not going to cut it in the future because it

And fundamentally with the

99

1

only measures the frequency of events occurring, it does not

2

measure the size or magnitude, or duration of the events.

3

And so we need to go further with our resource

4

adequacy metrics, metrics like expected unserved energy, or

5

EUE captures some of that.

6

direction.

7

know when we have a shortfall event, or when a shortfall

8

event is likely.

9

When does it occur?

So it's a step in the right

We need to have metrics that can capture you

How big is it?

How long does it last for?

10

Really drilling into those metrics is critical

11

because that allows the system planners to right size the

12

mitigation right?

13

that's selected fits the need, and we're not just

14

over-procuring resources just to provide reliability all

15

hours of the year when in fact it's you know it could be

16

short duration, it could be long duration.

17

It's to make sure that the mitigation

We really need to understand what the driving

18

factor is to make sure for the ratepayer, the consumer we're

19

fitting the mitigation to that need.

20

And then another thing that came up previously I

21

think Judy mentioned it, is all of our resource adequacy

22

metrics today really focus on expected values, or just the

23

average value.

24
25

We rarely look at the tail end risk.

And really making sure that we go beyond just
looking at average values, or average risk assessments, and

100

1

looking at a full distribution of potential outcomes so that

2

we can take into account how bad with that worst case about

3

being and is it worth addressing some of the larger outlier

4

events, especially if there's a low cost solution for them.

5

MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

And I believe

6

Miss Barton is next, and then I believe we have another

7

question from Commissioner Clements.

8
9

MS. BARTON:

And I do think that this is a very

difficult question to answer.

You know I think when we look

10

at least cost outcomes we have to do a couple of things.

11

have to start with where this discussion started, which is

12

what is the cost of these outages?

13

climate change?

14

is the cost associated with that mitigation?

15

We

What is the cost of

And how do we then mitigate that and what

So for me it's two camps.

There's the insurance

16

related no regret changes that we can make.

17

that is making sure that our black start generation is well

18

secured, that our black start crank past our redundant.

19

example, it's worth asking probably folks in the industry

20

what is your black start path?

21

assets?

22

So in my view

For

And how old are those

What might happen if you were to have you know a

23

severe event that's going on in the system?

You want to

24

make sure that you have that ability to restart the grid if

25

you ever need it.

We've never been as close quite frankly,

101

1

to losing an interconnect as we were with Texas just a few

2

short months ago, and despite the weatherization you know, a

3

lot of the things that the state is actually working on.

4

That still remains a significant risk.

5

And making sure that if the worst happens, that

6

we can actually restart the grid in a timely fashion.

7

That's important.

8

adequacy again.

9

insurance mechanism by which we're leaning on other regions,

As Derek mentioned on the resource

That's just a no regrets.

Having that

10

these are quick and easy hits that we can move forward on

11

that's going to give us a little bit more time to tackle

12

some of the complexities associated with really doing that

13

deep dive that's necessary to get this right.

14

When you take a look at a downscale of what

15

happens, this is going to take some time.

It's going to be

16

complicated, and we need to sit there and figure out how do

17

we simplify it, how do we make it less complicated?

18

we make it less costly?

How do

19

Which means we're going to need to do a lot of

20

studies, and that's why the no regrets solutions allow us

21

more time.

22

the other things that you can do, and I think it falls into

23

the you know insurance category, is you maintain a

24

controllable amount of generation that's there in reserve

25

should you need it.

And while this isn't a planning comment, one of

102

1

I think the biggest challenge we're going to have

2

with this transition is just that very fast move to all

3

variable resources.

4

some controllable resources again on the emergency

5

situation, only to deal with preventing these kinds of

6

things I think you can make sure it's a lot less costly than

7

it otherwise would be.

8

MS. NUTTER:

9
10

If you have the ability to bring on

Thank you very much.

Commissioner

Clements would you like to ask a final question?
COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Thanks Louise.

I know

11

we're running out of time.

12

your last comment.

13

spectrum of types of overlapping resource adequacy authority

14

in states, and FERC, and the regions.

15

should start getting at these issues you're identifying in

16

terms of insuring improved planning relative to these

17

evolving extreme weather risks?

18

Mr. Stenclik just a follow-up on

Appreciating that there's a broad

MR. STENCLIK:

How do you think FERC

Yeah I guess the first thing is

19

just to start pushing forward best practices and ways and

20

methods that should be included.

21

approaches that we're taking with redefining resource

22

adequacy is setting up a set of first principles that we're

23

then trying to disseminate, and when we work with

24

stakeholders in different regions, different ISOs,

25

different utilities, it is trying to develop a framework

I think one of the

103

1

recognizing that each region is going to have its own

2

regulatory structure, it's own resource mix, its own unique

3

approach that they need to take for resource adequacy, but

4

what are some of the first principles that apply really

5

across the board and set up the best practices that could be

6

applied.

7

I think on the metric side there's ways to well

8

you know it's fuzzy who has jurisdiction and to saying what

9

the reliability criteria should be.

I think a low-hanging

10

fruit is just to make sure that when resource adequacy

11

results are shared that all the metrics are provided.

12

You don't necessarily have to change the

13

criteria, but you can at least report the data more

14

holistically, so you're not just showing an expected value

15

loss of load number, you're showing a broad suite of

16

metrics.

17

can still at least report some of that.

18

Even though one of them might be a criteria, you

And I think on the regional coordination maybe

19

that's an opportunity for FERC as well to really look at

20

regional coordination between different jurisdictions on how

21

they can make consistent assumptions on how to rely on one

22

another for reliability and resource adequacy.

23
24
25

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:
of time.

Thank you and we're out

I appreciate it.
MS. NUTTER:

Miss Chang your hand is raised. Did

104

1

you have something?

2

MS. CHANG:

Yeah I just want to say one thing in

3

a very simple way if there's something that FERC can do I

4

think is to in addition to the metrics, I think just saying

5

to each region for utilities for the non-RTO regions, say

6

you know pay attention to climate related risks, which we

7

haven't even had in this industry, and then if we you know,

8

if we could take that one step further to say you know I

9

looked at this before a year ago.

10

Italy is doing this, which is have them come up

11

with a plan, whether it's resource adequacy, or transmission

12

planning, come up with a plan that incorporates the best

13

climate data that you can get your hands on.

14

first time around is not perfect, but I think having FERC to

15

say you know come up with a plan that incorporates climate

16

data is a huge step forward that we haven't had in this

17

industry.

18
19
20

And I think that would be an important starting
point.
MS. NUTTER:

Thank you very much.

21

everyone for a great discussion today.

22

this to my colleague Ena to close our panel.

23

And maybe the

MR. AGBEDIA:

Thanks Louise.

24

everyone for that discussion.

25

time for this panel.

And thank you

I'm going to pass

Thank you very much

We've reached the end of our

So I'll conclude by thanking our

105

1

panelists again.

2

now take a 20 minute break and we'll reconvene at 3:45 p.m.

3

Panel 1 speakers you may sign out of the Webex, and if you

4

would like to continue the conference you can use the public

5

web link that was sent to you, or you can visit at ferc.gov.

6

We appreciate your participation.

We will

Panel 2 panelists please stay with us over the

7

break and Commissioners stay signed into the Webex for the

8

break as well.

9

your cameras until we resume.

10

(Break)

Please mute your microphones and turn off
Thank you.

11

Panel 2:

Best Practices for Long-Term Planning

12

Assessing and Mitigating the Risk of Climate Change and

13

Extreme Weather Events

14

MR. VANDERBERG:

15

everybody.

16

Deputy Director of the Office of Energy Policy and

17

Innovation at FERC.

18

co-moderator Lena -- from the Office of General Counsel and

19

we will be moderating our second panel.

20

Welcome back.

Thank you Rahim and thank you
I am Eric Vanderberg.

I am the

Along with me today I have my

So this second panel will explore how existing

21

planning processes address climate change and extreme

22

weather events and possible improvements to those planning

23

processes.

24

discussion of relevant best practices throughout the

25

industry for assessing the risk posed by climate change and

This panel will engage in a broad ranging

106

1

extreme weather and developing cost effective mitigation.

2

We will be foregoing opening remarks for this

3

panel, and we're going to move directly into a question and

4

answer session.

5

the day and resume tomorrow afternoon.

6

like to start by introducing our panel 2 panelists.

7

Following this panel we will adjourn for

First we have Judith Curry.

So with that I'd

She is President of

8

the Climate Forecast Applications Network.

Joining us today

9

we also have Neal Millar, Vice President, Transmission

10

Planning and Infrastructure Development at the California

11

ISO.

12

Mark Lauby, Senior Vice President and Chief

13

Engineer at the North American Electric Reliability

14

Corporation or NERC.

15

We also have Devin Hartman, Director of Energy

16

and Environmental Policy at the R Street Institute.

17

have Alison Silverstein, Independent Consultant with Alison

18

Silverstein Consulting;

19

Caramanis Rudkevich and last but not least we have Frederick

20

Heinle who is the Assistant People's Counsel, Office of the

21

People's Counsel for the District of Columbia.

22

Also

Richard Tabors, President, Tabors

Welcome to this esteemed set of panelists.

We

23

really appreciate you joining us today.

Before we get into

24

our question and answer session I'd like to remind everybody

25

again to refrain from discussion of any pending contested

107

1

proceedings.

2

discussion, my colleague, Michael Haddad from the Office of

3

General Counsel will interrupt the discussion with a gentle

4

reminder to avoid that topic.

5

If anyone does engage in those kinds of

So we'll now begin the question and answer.

6

Panelists who would like to answer a question please use the

7

Webex raise hand function.

8

issues with the raise hand function please turn on our

9

microphone and indicate that you would like to respond.

10

Alternatively, if you're having

I will call on panelists that indicate they would

11

like to answer in turn.

12

your microphone and respond to the question.

13

completed your answer please turn off your microphone, and

14

just a reminder to also lower your virtual hand in Webex.

15

Once I call on you please turn on
Once you've

With those preliminaries out of the way we can go

16

ahead and get started and first of all I would just like to

17

start by saying thank you again to everybody to help

18

organize this panel and all of our panelists today.

19

a really excellent group here and so I want to go ahead and

20

dive right in.

21

We have

Where I'd like to dive in is a little bit where

22

the last panel left off.

I thought there was a lot of

23

really good discussion on the last panel about you know the

24

distinction between some of the climate change impacts like

25

sea level rise, rising temperatures, and extreme weather

108

1

events, you know the things in the former category, those

2

are things that will occur more gradually over time.

3

Things of the latter category, particularly at

4

the outer edges of those risk distributions, those 1 and 10

5

year events, those 1 in 20 years events, those 1 in 30 year

6

events, can really have devastating effects, so in lieu of

7

opening statements what I would like to do is start with a

8

question, and I'd like to hear from all of our panelists,

9

and that question is are current approaches to long-term

10

resource adequacy and transmission planning adequate to

11

address these type of tail risks such as extreme weather

12

events?

13

Yes or no, and if not in your opinion what needs

14

to change about the way the industry assesses and mitigates

15

risks.

16

So I'd like to go ahead and start with Judith.
MS. CURRY:

Thank you.

I appreciate the

17

opportunity to participate in this conference.

18

of climate (audio glitch) -- to help them anticipate and

19

respond to extreme weather events.

20

to weeks we provide probabilistic forecasts of extreme

21

events.

22

wildfire risk and severe convective weather.

23

As President

On time scales of days

These include heat and cold outbreaks, hurricanes,

(Audio glitch) we provide regional scenarios of

24

future extreme weather events including event frequency and

25

the severity of the worst case.

These scenarios are based

109

1

on natural multi-decadal climate variability, as well as

2

manmade global warming.

3

since the climate models provide a range of weather outcomes

4

that is too narrow.

5

I don't rely on (audio glitch)

To help avoid big surprises we provide catalogues

6

of historical extreme weather events impacting the region.

7

If it's happened before it can happen again.

8

and I'll answer the question how bad could it get -- in

9

other words what if scenarios.

10

(audio glitch)

It's too expensive to harden the infrastructure

11

and maintain reserve capacity for any conceivable extreme

12

weather event.

13

resiliency can you afford.

14

expectations used in designing the infrastructure.

15

often the response is to passively watch a cascading

16

disaster unfold, and then clean up afterwards.

17

The question then becomes how much
The (audio glitch)

the
Too

The impact of an extreme weather event can be

18

mitigated to some extent by making better operational

19

decisions (audio glitch).

20

be developed from considering plausible worst case scenarios

21

associated with that particular type of event.

22

Tactical adaption strategies can

Response protocols are developed, and then

23

deployed operationally in a (audio glitch).

Such

24

strategies support robust decision-making and can result in

25

better outcomes with less damage and more rapid restoration

110

1

of services.

2

has been (audio glitch).

3

Reconstructive landfalling winds from historical hurricanes

4

are used to draw their outage models to produce a range of

5

possible outage scenarios.

6

Here's an example. Since 2013 my company CFAN
-- impacted by hurricanes.

A catalogue of synthetic worst-case storms have

7

additional data (audio glitch) -- for assessing their

8

response strategies.

9

a possible landfall, CFAN provides extended range

Risk management begins 7 days prior to

10

probabilistic forecasts of tropical cyclone threats (audio

11

glitch) -- models.

12

worst case storms is used to assess the worst case

13

possibility for the pending landfall.

14

A catalogue of historical and synthetic

Based on CFAN's ensemble forecast of landfall

15

winds, outage models are (audio glitch).

16

manpower requirements are made so that mutual aid repair

17

crews in local repair units can be in place several days

18

before the actual landfall.

19

Estimates of

This general approach of developing technical

20

adaptation strategies can be (audio glitch) - that reduced

21

damage to infrastructure and will quickly restore service.

22

Thank you.

23
24
25

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Judith.

Let's go to

Neal next followed by Mark.
MR. MILLAR:

Thank you Eric.

I would say at the

111

1

ISO we see the current approaches create the opportunity to

2

consider the broader range of conditions that need to be

3

assessed, but not necessarily require them.

4

the standards that are employed for transmission planning,

5

the study of extreme events is something that's expected to

6

be conducted considering the local conditions and the issues

7

facing that particular system, and the people operating that

8

system, but there aren't hard and fast criteria as to when

9

someone should mitigate and to what extent.

Following on

10

And so we see the criteria themselves as creating

11

the framework, but then the question is are people taking it

12

as far as they need to, and considering how far some of

13

these issues should be pursued.

14

think the bulk system issues combined with the resource

15

planning need to be taken into account, and that we can do

16

more on these conditions, but I'll look forward to talking

17

about the details as we go through the conversation, so

18

thank you.

19
20
21

MR. VANDERBERG:

And there that's where I

Thank you Neal.

We've got Mark

next followed by Devin then Alison.
MR. LAUBY:

Thank you Eric.

And I'm also

22

delighted to join this panel today, and to think about where

23

we've come from.

24

measures the 1 event in 10 it was based on a number of

25

assumptions, most importantly, that capacity equaled energy

And in the past when we calculate capacity

112

1

plus reliability services, plus flexibility of ramping.

2

So if we had the capacity we had a number of

3

other things available to us.

4

course the conditions.

5

years and projecting those for the next 10 or 5.

6

start thinking a little bit more outside the box because

7

it's no longer what's possible, but what's plausible.

8
9

That's one.

The other is of

We can't be looking at the last 30
We have to

So we can start thinking a little bit more around
not only the capacity needs, but the energy needs.

And

10

remember that it's a basis of a lot of these adequacy

11

analysis.

12

outages due to random failures in plants.

13

would take -- or units.

14

out just to be really excruciating on the system.

15

It was around independence.

Independent forced
And sometimes it

Sometimes you would take a plant

But now we're talking about common conditions,

16

and we're talking about a resource mix that is now affected

17

more around the extreme weather.

18

extreme weather we're talking about something a little bit

19

different here too.

20

tornadoes, the ratios you know severe blizzard.

21

And when we talk about

Extreme weather was hurricanes,

Now we're talking about extended cold weather,

22

extended hot weather, weather, wind droughts, solar

23

droughts, and we have to build those into our framework, and

24

of course we don't have a lot of experience looking back, so

25

we have to see what's possible going forward so we build a

113

1

system that not only provides the energy along with the

2

capacity energy and ramping and reliability of services, but

3

then ensures that they are there during the more severe long

4

duration events.

5
6
7
8
9

So with that I'll be happy to pass it onto my
colleagues.

Thank you.
MR. VANDERBERG:

All right.

Thank you Mark.

Devin then Alison.
MR. HARTMAN:

Thank you Eric and thanks to you

10

and the rest of the Commission for having me today and for

11

addressing this important topic.

12

I will start off with emphasizing is that you know the top

13

of our panel looking at long-term citing best practices.

14

It's 1,000 foot level that

I really emphasize that there's a big gap between

15

existing planning processes and best planning processes

16

under static climate conditions, and then I would look at

17

the gap between the static best planning practices, and

18

where we are under global climate change.

19

And I think the existing deficiencies that we see

20

in many ways from which climate risks in the existing

21

reliability policy, and we look at the ways that climate

22

change manifests itself in that risk profile.

23

need to recognize that as a previous speaker said there's a

24

lot of work we can do on just a no regret approach.

25

think that's really important to emphasize because I think

We really

And I

114

1

climate risks largely exacerbate a lot of the existing risk

2

factors that this industry ostensibly already incorporates

3

to some degree.

4

But as the magnitude and the likelihood of some

5

of these events increases over time, any deficiencies that

6

we already have in our reliability risk management framework

7

are going to be further exacerbated.

8

on specifically on resource adequacy transmission planning

9

overall, I really emphasize that as we think about tail risk

And so to your point

10

and how these constructs incorporate tail risk, that we

11

think about a few elements.

12

So one thing is we do recognize that this

13

industry has always relied on engineering characteristics,

14

and we've always you know pushed the need to make sure that

15

this economic criteria that is getting better infused into

16

that ecosystem, and that those are reliability institutions,

17

and are more market-based institutions and processes are

18

seeking up better.

19

And then next when we think about this

20

conversation about should we be thinking about expected

21

outcomes and drivers of central tendency et cetera, as

22

opposed to you know indicators of reliability paradigm

23

adjustments as we compare that to the incorporation of tail

24

risk event, I think that we need to make sure that we

25

emphasize that we can distinguish between risk and

115

1

uncertainty.

2

So a lot of climate risk will actually manifest

3

itself in things that are reasonably known probabilities.

I

4

think that we can assign probabilities to, and that we can

5

codify the consequences on.

6

job with economic criteria, we can better understand the

7

consequences and develop expected values right, which is the

8

basis for cost benefit analysis and conventional risk

9

assessment.

And thus, when we do a better

10

Whereas, when we get into uncertainty analysis,

11

we get to the spaces where we have a lot more unknowns and

12

perhaps we can't even assign a probability.

13

need to start doing and employing tools like break even

14

analysis and other tools to at least say hey, if we're going

15

to construct scenarios about things, about like correlated

16

outages and how they're affected by perhaps multiple climate

17

risk vectors that could be worsening in the future, that we

18

at least build in more transparent single modes and how they

19

manage, and multiple risk streams.

20

That's where we

And then we at least can evaluate the avoided

21

damages, or the reliability benefits of reforming policy to

22

address those.

23

Thank you.

MR. VANDERBERG:

24

Alison followed by Richard.

25

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Thank you Devin.

Let's go to

Thank you and good afternoon.

116

1

Thanks for having me in the panel.

2

else that current planning methods are inadequate.

3

topic -- our panelists focus on long-term planning, but to

4

be frank it's not clear that short-term planning methods are

5

significantly better than long-term planning methods because

6

they both use a lot of the same premises.

7

I agree with everyone
This

We are not using enough creativity and

8

imagination about the breadth of the threats and

9

consequences.

A lot of what we are looking at in terms of

10

-- or what we should be looking at in terms of threats and

11

consequences as others said, have compound and synergistic

12

effects.

13

But beyond that I think we are in -- it is very

14

difficult for me to see how to realistically put believable

15

credible probabilities on most of this.

16

to stop pretending that we can do sort of deep, deeply

17

credible probabilistic weighted scenarios, and calculated

18

meaningful expected values, and just start looking for where

19

are the boundaries of all the scary things that might happen

20

that we should be preparing for.

21

So I think we need

Second, we need to be a lot more focused on

22

consequences, not just causes.

In many cases so many of the

23

things that could go wrong all have the same consequences,

24

and most of them are dreadful -- for the system, for

25

customers, and for our economy.

117

1

So that says to me that we need to put a lot more

2

focus on how do we mitigate, and as the prior panel

3

discussed insure against these common consequences, and put

4

a lot more emphasis on protection and resilience, rather

5

than attempting to prevent every potential thing that could

6

go wrong.

7

Some of the most -- those what they were calling

8

no regrets or insurance measures.

If you look at them from

9

a consequence perspective and ask how do I find mitigations

10

that are going to work every single day, rather than only

11

pay off against a single kind of harm.

12

transmission, storage, demand response, black start, and

13

frankly energy efficiency, which is probably one of the most

14

effective ways to protect customers against all the stuff

15

that could go wrong.

16

Those include

And particularly, building on the load, protect

17

improvements, air-conditioning and heat, because inefficient

18

heating and inefficient air-conditioners are what contribute

19

to some of the most trying things and times that go wrong on

20

customer, in terms of causing the grid to have operational

21

problems.

22

And last I concur with many of the past panelists

23

that when we talk about cost benefit analysis we far too

24

often talk about and assume that what matters is the cost of

25

the measures that we are considering taking, rather than

118

1

comparing not just those measures against each other, but

2

more critically what are the consequences and costs to us if

3

we don't take these measures?

4

What could go wrong?

And how do the costs of

5

more transmission, or more energy efficiency, or better

6

demand response -- how big or small are those costs, and how

7

often will they work and help us compared to the very

8

significant costs of the kinds of events that Texas just

9

suffered because we hadn't taken enough of those protective

10
11

measures, thank you.
MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Alison.

12

Richard next followed by Eric.

13

you're on mute.

14

MR. TABORS:

Let's go to

Richard if you're speaking

Thank you sir.

So I'll start again.

15

I am my coauthors and co-conspirators Paul -- thank you for

16

the opportunity of participating on this panel.

17

heavy look at your question I think the analytic

18

methodologies and models in utility planning today can only

19

be described as woefully and grossly inadequate.

20

Taking a

Our resource adequacy metrics and planning

21

methods systematically understate the probability, the

22

depth, and economic health and safety costs of high impact

23

events, and significantly increased demand or reduced

24

reduction in the output of multiple resources.

25

So there's a lot going on, and I think that the

119

1

fact that the industry still references an engineering

2

driven reliability standard of 1 day in 10 years is somewhat

3

close to unbelievable.

4

consider the economic consequences of service interruptions,

5

the fact -- and that fact is compounded by the assumption of

6

unit outage independence, and a failure really to reflect

7

weather trends.

8
9

That standard of LOLE doesn't

Understanding the probability of common mode
events is really the kind of the critical variable in all of

10

this.

11

nature, so as a result we need probabilistic approaches to

12

deal with it.

13

to our demand forecast which is also weather driven, to

14

intermittent resource forecasts, generation resource

15

adequacy, and quite honestly transmission adequacy as well.

16

We focus on the fact that weather is probabilistic in

We should adopt some probabilistic thinking

For example, on this one we've written about in

17

the days proceeding the Texas event, it was well understood

18

and recognized by anybody who really was looking at

19

probability distributions that there was at least a 10

20

percent chance that temperatures would be fully 30 degrees

21

below normal in Texas.

22

The result is that from my perspective on kind of

23

answering your question, we have to really understand that

24

there are probability distributions out there that we're

25

simply not paying attention to and that fit nicely into the

120

1

mindset of the utility industry, but we've got to get them

2

into that mindset, not kind of ignore the fact that we know

3

a lot more and are able to do a lot more analysis now, than

4

has been the case in the past, so I'll stop thank you.

5

MR. VANDERBERG:

6

let's go to Eric, last but not least.

7

MR. HEINLE:

8

MR. VANDERBERG:

9

MR. HEINLE:

Thank you Richard.

And then

Thank you Eric can you hear me?
Yes we can.

Great and thank you, and thank you.

10

It's been a delight to be part of this panel with such a

11

distinguished group of panelists.

12

that you just said, which is I think it's a really critical

13

question.

14

I want to go to something

How much resiliency can you afford?
As a ratepayer advocate for ratepayers in the

15

District of Columbia, I want to make clear that when we look

16

at costs and resilience of the grid, we have to understand

17

that resilience efforts that are not affordable do not make

18

the grid more resilient.

19

ratepayers interests.

20

In fact they simply do not serve

And that's the goal of all to make sure that we

21

are able to serve ratepayers 24/7, 365.

So these efforts

22

that are cost prohibitive really don't solve our issue.

23

here to tell you that consumers want to be part of the

24

solution.

25

this panel.

I'm

And that's why I'm so thankful to be included in

121

1

Because consumers want a seat at the table.

2

want to understand, and we want to work with you on

3

understanding how we do the analysis, looking at the

4

information, look at the data, look at the popular six

5

scenarios.

6

We

And consumers have an active role to play too,

7

whether and I think something good Alison hit upon.

Whether

8

it's through issues like demand response, distributed energy

9

resources, energy efficiency, these are all ways that

10

consumers can play an active role in helping the resilience

11

needs of the grid, and helping assure that we do get to a

12

much more resilient grid, which frankly, as the last one

13

that was shown we are not.

14

It's also important that there's an

15

accountability level that when we look at different programs

16

for you know whether it's an analysis of extreme weather

17

events, whether it's incentives to address those events and

18

tail end events, that there is a recognition that again

19

these programs need to have a real benefit for consumers and

20

-- the costs.

21

And then as I look forward to working with this

22

group and talking at this conversation about ways that we

23

can make the grid more resilient, that we can address the

24

extreme weather events but do so in an affordable way.

25

MR. VANDERBERG:

Very good thank you Eric.

I

122

1

appreciate it.

2

Hard to pick where to start first but what I'm going to do

3

is start off with a session of something that's come up a

4

couple of times here and in the prior panel which is

5

capacity.

6

A lot of good comments to get us started.

A couple of panelists have mentioned you know the

7

importance of thinking in a new way about common mode

8

outages, changes in the resource mix, and then you layer on

9

top of that you know the impacts of extreme weather events

10

having you know common impacts across really large areas.

11

So what I wanted to tee up was current resource adequacy

12

approaches -- a number of people mentioned the reliable on

13

the 1 in 10 year standard.

14

Do we need changes to those approaches to take a

15

different tact in the way we look at it, the meet changes,

16

and the way we think about the metrics and the way that we

17

procure capacity, so we are getting the most value for

18

consumers?

19
20

I see Alison's hand up.

Alison's hand went up

first so let's start with her and then Eric's was second.

21

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

All those years of playing hit

22

the button faster paying off thank you.

23

completely outmoded, and it's generation centric and ignores

24

all of the other capabilities out there including demand

25

response, including the fact that we can actually enlist

Yes 1 in 10 is

123

1

customers to control their demand and manage it in better

2

ways, and it ignores a lot of the other capabilities out

3

there.

4

And the fact that the grid is much more energy

5

dominant and stochastic than it used to be, instead of just

6

turning a dial and controlling a power plant, or multiple

7

power plants.

8

capacity mostly, and not much else.

9

So let's be super clear, and 1 in 10 is about

The ERCOT event and others have demonstrated that

10

a lot of the things that go wrong on the grid are due to

11

energy failures.

12

just isn't working.

13

nothing to do with the virtue of having iron on the ground.

14

And 1 in 10 isn't going to fix that in any way.

15

We have lots of iron on the ground, it
For a variety of issues that have

The other problem with 1 in 10 is again it's all

16

on the generation side, and since this is about the

17

balancing of supply and demand, it ignores that it's often

18

more cost-effective to improve demand than it is to just fix

19

supply thank you.

20
21
22

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Alison, let's go with

Eric and then Devin.
MR. HEINLE:

So first off I would echo everything

23

Alison said about the importance of balancing supply and

24

demand and look at the supply, from looking at the consumer

25

side, what can consumers do to programs like demand response

124

1

and energy efficiency to meet the capacity?

2

But it's important that when consumers do that

3

that when RTOs and utilities look at modeling for capacity

4

they take into account the value of those inputs, the value

5

demand response, the value of distributed energy resources.

6

Make sure that they are accounted for when we consider you

7

know what capacity we have on the grid, and I think you

8

know, making sure that they're incentivized properly.

9

We talk a lot about for generation, but we also

10

need to make sure we're getting the antennas right on the

11

demand side as well.

12

know Order 2222 maximum opportunity I think to build on some

13

of that with distributed energy resources.

14

sure that they are fully accounted for on the load side of

15

the grid.

16

And on the load side as well.

You

And again making

And then finally I think you know when we look at

17

from a supply side, looking at constructs like effective

18

load carrying capability and other ways to make sure that

19

you know recognizing that every resource on the supply side,

20

whether it's solar, whether it's coal, whether it's nuclear,

21

they all have certain limitations to their operations, and

22

we need to effectively model that so that you know we

23

recognize what their limitations are and we're balancing

24

that in an effective way, and in a way that recognizes that

25

we don't overbuild and procure for capacity.

125

1

MR. VANDERBERG:

2

MR. HARTMAN:

Thanks Eric.

Devin?

Eric you gave us a lot to chew on

3

there, so I'll start off with the 1 in 10.

So the 1 in 10

4

standard historically has always been more of a metric of

5

convenience than any type of optimization exercise.

6

it's really going forward something that is increasingly

7

becoming obsolete.

And so

8

And we need to -- I think the last year's events

9

have really highlighted importantly the need to distinguish

10

between different types of reliability events, and different

11

really looking at also getting away from just treating all

12

firm load as equal, and assigning like the central estimate

13

of that through an administrative process.

14

So really getting away from things, whether it's

15

1 in 10, or if we were to shift it to 1 in 5, or 1 in 15 for

16

different types of reliability events.

17

what is the distribution of the value of lost load?

18

know we'll probably have further conversation on this later,

19

but we need to start thinking about like there's just

20

inherent constraints of treating reliability as just an

21

exogenous constraint that's always imposed on these

22

constructs, and start thinking about we facilitate more

23

endogenous reliability in these systems, where as the

24

variance within consumer preferences can really be brought

25

out in the system.

Also thinking about
And I

126

1

And that's really what should be encouraging, and

2

we have better technology going forward to address this both

3

for the more historic event as well as you know scenarios

4

going forward where we see more extreme events.

5

And then secondly, I'll point out that when we

6

get into capacity constructs, and I'll note that 49 states

7

do some form of capacity, recognized capacity planning on

8

the gen co side.

9

than others.

Some of them just do it more efficiently

But we know the capacity markets discussion of

10

FERC purview, we're going to get a lot more attention, and

11

we'll probably get into more about the you know the ELCC and

12

some of these other capacity accreditation mechanisms,

13

especially for the deficiencies in addressing common mode

14

failure.

15

But I would also emphasize that over the last

16

year we look at which 4 out of the 7 RTOs have implemented

17

involuntary rotating outages over that time period.

18

really what we're seeing is also a need to have a

19

conversation about capacity procurement outside of just the

20

conventional, you know, mandatory centralized construct.

21

And

And so there's a real need to both align

22

reliability institutions at the federal and state level,

23

especially in the cost of service jurisdictions, and we're

24

really seeing that cropping up here in the grid of the

25

future type of conversation in some of those regions.

127

1

And so I'd strongly you know when we think about

2

some institutional framework as well as the metrics

3

prospective, as well as the quality of inputs that go into

4

this as we've noted that historical indicators are no longer

5

the sound estimate of the future condition.

6

chew on there, but we'll probably dive into each one of

7

these a little bit further later, thanks.

8

MR. VANDERBERG:

9

MR. LAUBY:

Great.

So a lot to

Thank you Devin.

Mark?

Thank you for that and you now you

10

have to remember where this 1 in 10 came from.

11

enough to remember.

12

the 1960's with Calabrese doing all these calculations over

13

at PJM, and it was like 1 in 8, then they felt like that was

14

suitable for the reliability of those kinds of generating

15

plants at the time.

16

I'm old

Some of you may be, but it came from

And they popped it up to 10, like you said it's

17

not economic now.

18

energy plus reliability of services plus ramping.

19

not getting that anymore if we just get the 1 day in 10.

20

What we need to do is start thinking about those other paths

21

of the equation.

22

And as I mentioned before capacity equals
Now we're

How much energy are you going to need?

How much ramping are you going to need?

What are

23

the reliability of services you're going to need?

And back

24

out of that what one day or whatever means.

25

remember at that time you didn't have computer space, you

Because

128

1

only had 1 event in 10 because that's all you could model in

2

the 1960's on an IBM 360.

3

and hours and hours of calculations.

So obviously now we can do hours

4

So I think what especially as the importance of

5

electricity has increased, and we can model all the demand

6

response we want.

7

Garver, multi-state modeling.

8

that, but we need to understand exactly what are the actual

9

parameters we need to be modeling to, and what is going to

We can do ELCC came out in 1969 with Len
We know how to do all of

10

be acceptable given the subsector dependence, and the

11

expansion of electrification.

12

And to see how that warrants the difference in

13

energy requirements and flexibility requirements and likely

14

service requirements and then figure out what the 1 in

15

whatever is.

16

1 in 10, you figure out the dog gone reserve margins.

17

It don't work that way no more.

18

get it down to basic principals of what makes up that

19

capacity and what it delivers, thank you.

Again, it used to be cool because you get your

20

MR. VANDERBERG:

21

MR. MILLAR:

You've got to

And Neal?

Thank you.

So when I hear the

22

discussion around the 1 in 10 it sounds like at one extreme

23

some people are still thinking of it in the context of the

24

way it was calculated 20-30 years ago.

25

I calculated it 30 years ago.

And I admit the way

But in jurisdictions like

129

1

ours there's a high penetration of renewable resources,

2

we've had to look even in that probabilistic calculation

3

around what's actually going to serve the load each hour of

4

the day, and what kind of within some reasonable framework

5

of outages, what's your probability around being able to

6

supply load, but you have to be looking at 8760.

7

As Mark was indicating you can't just think of it

8

as a single point in time.

If you are still calculating it

9

that way well that won't work for us, and I suspect it's not

10

working for a lot of you.

11

say around the averages is one way to go about it.

12

think a single metric will ever convey all the new

13

conditions that we need to consider.

14

This probabilistic approach I'll
I don't

The amount of assessment that we have to do with

15

the much more diverse league of resources, much different

16

demand side response requires much more careful analytics

17

considering a broader range of conditions, and I totally

18

agree with Alison that we also need to explore what the

19

boundary conditions are so we see an evolution towards

20

probabilistic approaches geared around the center line.

21

But then also scenario analysis and assessment

22

that have to consider the boundary conditions and

23

effectiveness.

24

longer term resource planning considerations, not just

25

taking whatever falls out the bottom of a model per se, well

And a lot of that really has to come in the

130

1

that's your most economic generation mix, but then you have

2

to test your scenarios.

3

What sort of common event exposure do you have

4

with that fleet?

5

concerns that are emerging for your particular local area.

6

You know for us we're trying to consider a number of these

7

parameters.

8

the wildfires in itself caused degradation of performance of

9

solar panels.

10

Does it give you a system that meets the

I admit the fact that smoke contamination from

It was one of those second order effects behind

11

climate change that we have to take into account.

12

have to look at other conditions that are on a more normal

13

basis, but also a broader range of extreme events.

14

year's summer assessment work in preparing for this summer

15

we noted that what we used to consider a 1 in 10 peak load

16

are mid and 1 in 5 hadn't changed much, but the 1 in 10

17

jumped by 5 percent over what we would have previously

18

considered a 1 in 10 event to be.

19

We also

In this

So there's a broader range of conditions we have

20

to take into account, and we have to study a much broader

21

range of scenarios and conditions because the fleet is

22

capable of that type of broader performance.

23
24
25

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thanks.

Thank you Neal and let's go to

Richard.
MR. TABORS:

Thanks.

Let me pick up a little bit

131

1

on Neal and on Mark.

One of the things that what we haven't

2

really said so far is that the 1 in 10 and the whole issue

3

of resource adequacy is really intended to focus on do it

4

once and get it right and then move on.

5

reality at this point is in fact not that, but rather that

6

there's a need to have a relatively continuous process based

7

on what we learn on a whether you want it day by day, hour

8

by hour basis, and I know that in terms of sort of

9

operational planning that's kind of the way the thought

And I think the

10

process goes, but it's not the way that we're answering what

11

I'd call a stochastically mature way of handling resource

12

adequacy.

13

We've been working on something called SNAP which

14

is stochastic nodal adequacy pricing which is an effort to

15

take this whole process that's been very engineering

16

oriented and turn it into a stochastic process that's

17

weather driven, and then but then at the end of the day ends

18

up really getting consumers who are the ones that count only

19

in this game, getting consumers a value, something

20

associated with value of lost load that they would then be

21

able to decide well do I want to pay this amount for

22

reliability, or do I not at this point.

23

In other words there's a sense of price driven

24

response, so to me there's an effort at this stage to

25

getting away from the one day in 10 years which I think by

132

1

the way calculate what that is in economic terms.

2

rather shocking value that we assume consumers are willing

3

to pay, but ignoring that for the moment, looking at it and

4

saying okay let's get the resource adequacy process into a

5

much more efficient and routine and dynamic process of

6

calculation of probability of there being a problem if you

7

were.

8
9

It's a

We have this information, weather information
today, it's orders of magnitude better than it was two years

10

ago, three years ago, four years ago at the most.

11

you dig into that what you find very quickly is gee, you

12

know there's a lot of information here that I didn't have

13

before that I now have, and there's computing technology and

14

capability in the cloud based computing that I didn't have

15

and now I have.

16

So I can't sort of say gee, I can only do it once

17

a year because it's too difficult.

18

now.

And it's not too difficult.

19
20

So once

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

I can do it once a day
Thank you.

Eric can I offer a follow-up

thought?

21

MR. VANDERBERG:

22

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Absolutely Alison.
Thank you.

The basic premise

23

of 1 in 10 and designing to that has always been if I get

24

this number right everything will be fine.

25

only thing that matters is so you build to 1 in 10 because

And then the

133

1

that's what the standards allow, and then you sit back and

2

essentially assume everything's going to be good.

3

But you know feeling lucky is not a plan these

4

days, and it doesn't get the job done, and the grid and

5

people, and extreme events are showing that we are not

6

lucky, and that a lot of bad stuff is happening.

7

think that requires us to take a very different approach.

8
9

And so I

Instead of saying I'm going build to this level
then just sit back and wait and trust my operational

10

instincts, and capabilities.

11

a really different approach to planning, and then not to

12

solve the probabilistic and scenario stuff that we're

13

talking about, but to me that demands that we go much more

14

to no regrets investments rather than heroics.

15

MR. VANDERBERG:

That necessitates that we take

Thank you.

Thank you Alison that's a

16

really good point.

17

think a thread that would bring it through comments from

18

Mark and Neal and Richard was you know taking in more --

19

slightly differently, but a more probabilistic approach Neal

20

I think you described it as continuing to focus on the

21

center line, but augmenting that with additional what if

22

scenarios.

23

One thing I wanted to follow-up on was I

Can you talk me through how you know an approach

24

like that, or a more probabilistic approach addresses the

25

issue of common mode failure?

Once again I think one of the

134

1

challenges that we're seeing and we're not seeing resources

2

linked in ways that we haven't thought about before

3

previously.

4

outages as independent, now we're seeing them linked.

5
6

We've always kind of thought of resource

And so just trying to get a better sense of the
best approach for dealing with that challenge.

7

MR. MILLAR:

Sure I'd be happy to comment a bit

8

on that.

I don't want to suggest that we think we're out of

9

the woods and it's perfect here.

Clearly, there's a lot of

10

room for improvements.

11

looking at is that we have a number of things that are

12

changing more or less at the same time.

13

I think the situation that we're

We're moving to a much more reduced GHG fleet.

14

We're also seeing the demands on the existing gas fired

15

generation fleet to be producing less energy, but being

16

available especially for many of the units that are older,

17

more heavily depreciated, a lower cost sort of capacity

18

insurance to help ride through other conditions.

19

But the analysis now has to focus on how do you

20

make these use limited resources work together to provide an

21

overall reliable system across a pretty reasonable range of

22

possible outcomes around what kind of conditions your system

23

might be facing.

24
25

But even after you finish that you still have to
look at some of these common mode failures.

We've been

135

1

putting more time on looking at what the gas supply system,

2

what redundancy is on the gas supply system into California.

3

Given the shift in usage for parts of the system where the

4

gas fired system is expected to operate much less than it

5

did in the past, but much more urgently when called upon

6

puts more pressure on the local gas storage fleet for what

7

sort of gas storage capability do you have in certain

8

areas.

9

So we have to pull it much further back than just

10

what's the mathematical probability of the unit having a

11

mechanical failure.

12

even stepping back from that a lot of the initial portfolio

13

development around developing future generation scenarios,

14

or focusing on minimizing cost, but once you've done that

15

even if that gives you a starting point, you then have to

16

look at how that helps you manage reasonable worst case

17

events.

18

That clearly doesn't cut it.

What about an extreme heatwave?

But then

What about

19

something that affects you know.

20

fairly major solar eclipse, but we saw it coming, and we

21

were able to adapt with other resources, so you have the

22

system positioned.

23

know that kind of notice that you're going to be seeing a

24

shortfall in a particular type of resource.

25

We rode through our first

You're not always so lucky to have you

So I think it's necessary to consider those kind

136

1

of extreme events that needs to be taken into account and

2

asking yourselves okay I've optimized this fleet, was it

3

really worth from a resilience point of view, getting that

4

last dollar of optimization out.

5

resource diversity, and at times for some of these resources

6

we need a bit more redundancy in addition to capacity to

7

ensure that we can reliably operate the system.

8
9

Should we have more

And I think some of the same conditions apply
also to the transmission planning as well.

That even if you

10

go through your normal planning exercise there's still that

11

extra level of review after the fact that does this give you

12

a fleet you can operate?

13

operate?

14

range of even you know a minor change in average temperature

15

is one thing, but what we are seeing is that the extreme

16

events are getting much more extreme than what we used to

17

face.

18

Does it give you a grid you can

And have you actually considered the possible

And that's something we really have to take into

19

account to these planning decisions.

And that's not a

20

separate exercise.

21

your planning and development activities.

22

take into account the local conditions that you're

23

experiencing.

24

the west coast, that a one size fits all approach might

25

address problems that we don't have and miss the boat on the

That needs to be baked into the rest of
It also has to

And that's always a concern to us I admit on

137

1

problems that we do have.

2
3

So that's where we see that local consideration
being critical.

4

MR. VANDERBERG:

Great thank you Neal.

I think

5

Richard and then Mark put their hands up next followed by

6

Judith.

7

MR. TABORS:

hey I mean I'm following up really

8

on Mark's -- sorry on Neal's comments that you know common

9

mode events are probably the critical thing, but for most

10

part I think at this stage most of the common mode events

11

have been ignored in the past, but now we know what to look

12

for at least in some probabilistic sense as to what's going

13

on.

14

The combination of drought, high winds that go

15

with it, thunder and lightening storms, lack of water, those

16

all go together, and they all affect the power sector and

17

with it the

18

to flag because it's a FERC problem is that essentially the

19

fact that the natural gas market runs on a time clock and a

20

mindset that's incredibly different from the electric

21

mindset and time clock in terms of the market that

22

essentially there's just a desperate need to get

23

information flow, to get data flow, between those two market

24

structures if we expect to be able to use the natural gas,

25

and we're going to have to in order to handle ramping and

natural gas sector.

And so one thing I'd like

138

1

other issues that are associated with the industry as the

2

industry moves more into more renewable technologies.

3

And picking up one other pet complaint of mine at

4

the moment that is FERC related, at least, and that is that

5

you know the transmission system we treat that as a fixed

6

asset with no variability and no flexibility in it.

7

there is a fair amount of technology in transmission

8

optimization, dynamic line ratings, all of which are sitting

9

out there, but nobody uses them because the incentive

10
11

And

structure just isn't there to do it.
So you know you look at it and you say what are

12

the two big issues?

Yeah, we've got demand response and a

13

lot of other things that are critical, but if you look at it

14

at the moment, the gas supply problem is critical.

15

transmission lack of flexibility problem is critical.

16

the fact that we're just ignoring tremendous amounts of

17

information that we actually have that we just don't use in

18

the sense of the stochastics of the system.

19

MR. VANDERBERG:

20

MR. LAUBY:

Thanks Richard.

Yeah thank you.

The
And

Mark?

Of course when NERC

21

has got a white paper out on the website which would work

22

with industry on to really look at this energy issue.

23

we look at it from three timeframes, nothing surprising here

24

-- long-term, of course like a year or more, a year or less

25

to the day the operational planning, and then of course

And

139

1

operations.

2

And each one of those will require changes in the

3

way in which we currently do our analysis and our planning.

4

And certainly from a long-term perspective what is the

5

energy that I need to deliver, and what are the scenarios

6

that I need to be delivering against, I think that the idea

7

of common modes, or common conditions as we transfer a grid

8

that goes to a grid which is much more sensitive to the

9

weather conditions, understanding those implications.

10

And then of course how we back that up.

And of

11

course from a one year or more of a plan, an operational

12

plan.

13

summarizing plants, this is also around really managing your

14

energy, managing where your demand response is, managing

15

where your units are and maintenance, managing which

16

critical infrastructure load you're serving.

17

Now it's more than just winterizing plants, or

Make sure you continue to serve it, and then go

18

through that process on a seasonal basis, and of course then

19

maybe a rolling 21 day average.

20

reliability assessments together every year and more and

21

more now we are putting these scenarios together, so we

22

really understand the implications of these we'll call them

23

bookends of serious conditions, and we're learning as you

24

said before the impacts of these common mode failures.

25

Now NERC of course puts its

One of course looking at them and lengthening the

140

1

timeframe, and then understanding again as an industry where

2

we have our folks being electrified.

3

kind of resource mix we need to be putting in place to begin

4

with, the wide implementation of those kind of resources,

5

and then ensuring them we can deliver them.

6

What that means, the

Because many folks are going to be experiencing

7

the same weather at the same time.

8

thinking about what we mean by extreme events anymore.

9

mean the idea that an extreme event is 20 below zero for a

10

And we might start
I

week in Texas, maybe that's not extreme weather anymore.

11

Maybe it's something we're going to have to start

12

thinking about a little bit more and this is the way I'm

13

going to plan, this is the way I'm going to operate towards,

14

and start thinking what are the implications of that, how

15

much that load as more folks get more electrified, electric

16

transportation, and dependence on communications and natural

17

gas facilities, and how we would have to serve them because

18

otherwise we don't serve them and they become critical to

19

the operation of the bulk electric system.

20

How do we manage that as well?

So there's a lot

21

yet on our plate to do.

22

excited about this panel because we're really kind of

23

picking apart some of the important issues.

24
25

I agree with that.

MR. VANDERBERG:
right.

And anyway I'm

I appreciate that Mark.

Let's go to Judith and then Eric.

All

141

1

MS. CURRY:

I'd like to make a comment about the

2

extreme heat and cold events.

These are associated with

3

massive high pressure systems which can cover like more than

4

half the country.

5

speeds.

6

know, three days, five days.

7

Okay.

They're also associated with low wind

And they can produce heat and cold events, you

So if you've got these extreme events,

8

temperature events with no wind speeds, and all your

9

neighbors are facing the same thing, where you know it's not

10

like you can rely on your neighboring region to transmit

11

something to you.

12

issue with a heat and cold event.

So you know to me I think this is a big

13

If they're so widespread, they have a lot -- it's

14

not like a hurricane, it's over in a day, you know it's over

15

in a day.

16

can -- we do heat and cold wave probability forecasting in

17

my company, and you can often see you know significant

18

probabilities, maybe 18-20 days in advance, and by the time

19

you know you're 12 or 14 days out you know you can give a

20

pretty good probability that something is going to happen,

21

and by the time it's day 5 or 6 you can really get a sense

22

of the magnitude.

23

These things can go on for several days.

Now you

You know is it going to be a record breaker, or

24

whatever.

So we really have some information, some weeks in

25

advance, and so you know my question is what's the plan when

142

1

you see something like this coming?

You know it seems like

2

relying on the mix of you know, huge demand, no supply from

3

the wind and the whole region is suffering the same

4

conditions.

5

I mean what's the plan here.

6

MR. VANDERBERG:

7
8

points and very interesting.
MR. HEINLE:

Thank you Judith very good
Eric?

Thanks.

I want to go back to

9

something that Richard hinted on, which is the gas electric

10

coordination, and you now when I went through the comments

11

for today for today's technical conference, this was

12

something that a lot of parties hit on, and from a

13

consumer's perspective this is really an opportunity to gain

14

a lot of value for the buck.

15

You know we've gone through different discussions

16

about fuel security, onsite fuel storage, dual fuel supply

17

for black start facilities, and all of these are significant

18

cost upgrades and infrastructure upgrades that you know will

19

cost consumers quite a bit of money.

20

And before we sort of leap to those types of

21

costs upgrades, looking at something where we can better

22

coordinate better manage the gas and electric markets so

23

that you now we can get a better sense from delivery, get a

24

better sense of what's available in the pipeline.

25

sure that those gas resources that we count on for things

Making

143

1

like capacity performance in the PJM region are available,

2

and are able to perform, you know, that's really a bang for

3

the buck for consumers and you know much more cost

4

beneficial way of perhaps you know maybe it doesn't address

5

every situation, but it does address a lot of potential you

6

know resilience weaknesses.

7

And so those are the types of things that the

8

Commission really should be looking at before we sort of

9

jump to the more costly and you know iron in the ground type

10

of solutions.

11

it is gas/electric coordination, or other operations in

12

terms of more conservative operations, by system operators,

13

those types of things, and that can really be a good benefit

14

for consumers.

15
16
17

What way can we improve operations?

Whether

So I hope that's something that we talk about a
little bit here, and the Commission explores.
MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Eric.

I see a couple

18

of panelists that still have their hands up.

19

additional comments folks wanted to make, or are those left

20

over from earlier?

21

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

22

MR. VANDERBERG:

23

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Were there

I have a fresh one if I may?
Absolutely.
Well thank you.

All of the --

24

I agree with everything that the other panelists have said,

25

and it highlights the many, many, many things that can go

144

1

wrong, and the degree to which grid reliability is teetering

2

on more and more what ifs, and more and more preparations.

3

So I want to say yet again that given the high

4

number of things that can go wrong on the supply side, let's

5

please put some attention to the ways that we can protect

6

customers from all of those dreadful outcomes on the demand

7

side.

8

in FERC's jurisdiction.

9

coordination isn't exactly in it either.

And I know that energy efficiency is not classically

10

But then again maybe gas electric

There's a lot of things that we can do to protect

11

customers that we need to do in cooperation with others.

12

And so, just because all you have is a market's hammer

13

doesn't mean that everything is a nail.

14

ways to find other solutions and make them work to protect

15

customers.

16

We need to find

I mean we are not in this just about electricity.

17

We're in this to serve people, so let's think about how to

18

protect and serve them, not just about electricity for its

19

own sake.

20

Thank you.
MR. LAUBY:

And I wanted to mention that we need

21

to engage industry in a broader conversation around what the

22

design basis of the system of the future is really going to

23

be.

24

little better over here.

25

minus one would be the transmission line or a generating

And this picks up on what Neal was talking about a
That you know it used to be the N

145

1

station or plant, and then extreme conditions were something

2

you know, and now we're talking about common everyday

3

so-called extreme events that takes out wide swaths of

4

resources and so how do we then respond to that?

5

What is the design basis for that system?

And

6

that would add to kind of the different types of solutions

7

we're talking about, be it demand response, be it energy,

8

whatever.

9

that new design basis is given the transformation of this

We have to have a real open conversation of what

10

grid.

Not only in the next five years, but in the next 20

11

years, and then really talk about what that basis is and it

12

may be a little bit different depending on where you are,

13

what's going to be acceptable, but as we have to electrify

14

this country and become more and more dependent on

15

electricity, and in many ways that it can be generated, be

16

distributed, these smart grids or through long distance

17

generation and transmission.

18

We need to understand what that basis is going to

19

be so that we can ensure that we've built a system that will

20

serve the consumer's needs.

21

in this because we really care about the end user.

22

about reliability.

23

the North American continent.

24
25

As you know Alison says, we're

We care about the nation.

MR. VANDERBERG:

We care

We care about

Thank you Mark and that's

actually a great segue into the next question that I was

146

1

going to tee up for this group which is about the current

2

approach that we're taking to transmission planning, so I

3

want to shift gears a little bit and talk about transmission

4

planning.

5

know, the current approach that we have in the NERC

6

standards in TPL1 is a deterministic approach.

7

Mark as you were eluding to a minute ago, you

We have planned contingencies.

We have definite

8

performance criteria.

As Neal noted at the outset there is

9

a framework there to have entities look at these wide area

10

events, evaluate the potential impacts, but it is just that

11

as a framework.

12

basis, nor does it require any type of you know mandatory

13

corrective actions or anything to that affect, so the

14

question I wanted to pose to the panel is how should the

15

current deterministic approach that we are taking with the

16

transmission planning, how should that evolve in light of

17

the threats posed by extreme weather that we've been

18

talking about here?

19
20
21

It doesn't you know, establish that design

I think Richard was first followed by Devin, so
let's go in that order.
MR. TABORS:

Okay.

I think transmission planning

22

is a real bugaboo and I will take some responsibility for

23

having taken transmission and swept it under the rug when we

24

were doing the restructuring of the power industry and 808

25

little things like that, so I have some guilt on this.

147

1

On the other hand, I think that something that is

2

absolutely critical at this point is that until there's an

3

economic incentive for transmission owners to try and be

4

creative, and try and do things that are creative in terms

5

of operating efficiently, we're really stuck in a hole with

6

the ability to plan transmission.

7

I mean what it means today that we all agree is

8

wrong I think, is that what I have to do is I have to build

9

more wires and bigger wires in order to hook more things up,

10

when in fact we've got a ton of wires.

11

out how to run them and operate them more efficiently, which

12

there are technologies to do that as I said before.

13

Let's try and figure

So I think one of the issues with transmission

14

planning is to say what is it I'm trying to do?

15

Alison's raised this thing.

16

real question to go back to the drawing board and say you

17

know what is it that we expect transmission to do, where and

18

how do we want to evolve that process intelligently, and

19

effectively and efficiently.

20

Mark raised it.

And

I think it's a

Big word on efficiently.

Building transmission lines is expensive.

We've

21

got a whole lot of them and some of them aren't where we

22

want them, but a lot of them are where we want them.

23

we start with what we have because you can't sort of say oh,

24

I've got to build it from scratch.

25

How do

I'm sorry the chances of building it from scratch

148

1

are real close to zero.

Thanks.

2

MR. VANDERBERG:

3

MR. HARTMAN:

Thank you Devin?

Yeah I think this is a great

4

example of where we have deficiencies I the existing

5

planning process and factoring in climate considerations are

6

just going to be like all right, like more you know stronger

7

case in point now to reform this arena.

8
9

And I think you can kind of segment it into
interregional, regional, local, and I'll just make some high

10

level global observations so we can avoid you know some

11

region specific issues here.

12

evaluation perspective, because that might give a little bit

13

more to the deterministic question, we're seeing a couple

14

pronounced problems in transmission planning kind of

15

manifest in a few areas.

16

But I'll just say from an

So one is like we keep thinking that economic and

17

reliability considerations have to be siloed, and so we're

18

like constantly putting everything into an economic bin,

19

calculating those types of projects and doing that, and then

20

there's a reliability project bin and if we're going to have

21

this conversation and really move forward we need to start

22

talking about like the value of reliability is inherently

23

economic, and we need to start talking about co-optimizing

24

it, what we call limited economic benefits today, with the

25

broader reliability benefit.

149

1

And we're seeing that especially play out in the

2

regional processes, right?

3

side there's a few RTO experiments I think broadly everyone

4

would say interregional planning has been disappointing, but

5

as it relates to the -- approach, I'd emphasize that like

6

even a couple of the regions that have started to take next

7

steps to collaboratively work together are really struggling

8

to come up with a common set of benefits.

9

And then on the interregional

It's like the basic, like the rubric to even

10

define like how to proceed going forward.

11

even get like the more conventional benefits really ironed

12

out between regions, that's big, and I think that you do

13

inherently within the system have a bunch of fundamental

14

questions about for example how independent the RTOs are

15

going to be in the transmission planning process.

16

So if we can't

That's everything on the criteria upfront to

17

project selection, and then you -- we've got a framework

18

that looks at a lot of regulatory arbitrage occur in the

19

planning process, and then that's really still not also even

20

outside of the Order 1000 context when you look at some of

21

the most vulnerable areas to extreme weather and

22

transmission repercussions.

23

A lot of times you see a massive amount of

24

variance between the reliability performance within a single

25

region right.

We sort of have these chronic dead zones if

150

1

you will right.

2

have persisted for a long time now.

3

customer valuation of reliability manifested in the planning

4

process evenly across these spatial elements right.

5

And there's reason that those dead zones
We're not seeing

And we're seeing a systematic suppression of

6

competitive forces, and a lot of these competitive forces,

7

especially new entrants want to pair with end users, and I

8

think listening from transmission dependent utilities we're

9

really learning a lot more because they're tremendous case

10
11

studies.
But if you talk about extreme weather, those are

12

some of the most disaffected parties right now.

13

think about addressing transmission planning deficiencies at

14

those three scales is a great place to begin thanks.

15

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Devin.

16

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Thank you.

So overall

Alison?

So transmission

17

planning and it's inadequacies matter because the nation

18

cannot possibly achieve our decarbonization goals without

19

more transmission period.

20

existing transmission more efficient and effective, but that

21

doesn't change the fact that all of our most productive

22

renewable resource areas will need to be opened up through

23

new transmission.

24
25

Richard is right that we can make

And getting those to our greatest customer
concentrations, and where electrification will have the

151

1

greatest impact requires more transmission.

So more

2

transmission is non-negotiable for the sake of achieving

3

decarbonization.

4

the last panel, for a reliability point of view transmission

5

is an absolutely essential reliability tool and protector.

6

So it's not enough to just say -- to wring your

And as many of the panelists discussed on

7

hands and say we need more transmission.

We do need more

8

transmission, and it's very obvious that the current methods

9

aren't working, and the current processes and systems aren't

10

working.

11

say look, they aren't working we need something better.

12

So instead of trying to go incremental we need to

And that means starting fresh on a whole lot of

13

stuff and building on, but not being handcuffed by the

14

current systems that we have.

15

form of benefits definition that is significantly broader.

16

We need it to encompass what benefits do we measure.

17

We need a significantly new

We need it to count more benefits to more people.

18

And we need it to cover a much longer point in time.

And

19

this kind of needs to be consistent as well as the planning

20

processes and the metrics and the cost allocation tools need

21

to be consistent across both regional, intraregional and

22

interregional transmission because too many people are

23

getting screwed by the lack of transmission, and by the lack

24

of participation and representation in a lot of these

25

critical conversations and processes.

152

1

So just saying let's tweak around the edges is

2

not going to change this in any way, shape or form, that's

3

the definition of insanity.

We need much better tools.

4

need much better processes.

And we need to do a complete

5

shake the etch-o-sketch as one of my old bosses used to say

6

all the time, of transmission planning and my recommendation

7

for large intraregional and interregional is that we create

8

a national electric transmission authority that is

9

responsible for developing -- working with everybody in the

10

came to develop a lot of these tools and make them

11

applicable across the entire nation in every region.

12

We

Because if we just have the tyranny of every

13

state's small benefits, old-fashion calculation methods, we

14

are never going to break out of the permitting trap, or the

15

cost allocation trap, or the cost effectiveness trap.

16

think we need to just start fresh because we can't do decarb

17

without it.

So I

Thank you.

18

MR. VANDERBERG:

19

MR. HEINLE:

Thank you Alison.

Eric?

So to add on to what other folks

20

have said.

I think you know all the benefits of both inter

21

and intraregional transmission planning, whether it's

22

decarbonization, whether it's improve resiliency, they

23

simply can't happen unless or until the Commission I think

24

frankly, really steps up and looks at federal ways to

25

conduct transmission planning, encourages the RTOs to look

153

1

for more authority.

2

You know the RTOs they're called regional

3

transmission organizations.

4

planner.

5

planned in a very vulcanized way, it's planned state by

6

state, transmission zone by transmission zone, and perhaps

7

that works great for that state, or that transmission zone,

8

but it also then doesn't work to serve the region and

9

certainly not on a more national scale.

10

They should be the regional

But quite often when we see the transmission is

And so I think the Commission really needs to

11

look at really I would say invigorating Order 1000 and

12

looking for ways to encourage much more regional planning,

13

much more direction from the Commission, from the RTOs,

14

perhaps something like Alison suggested with a national

15

transmission planning authority.

16

consumer advocate it's always been a mystery why we look to

17

market to solve a lot of the issues with capacity, energy,

18

reliability.

19

I also think to me as a

But with transmission we still really rely on

20

right of first refusal, and sort of you know with few

21

exceptions, the transmission owners have sort of the you

22

know, an almost inherent in terms of redeveloping

23

transmission and again, you know, sometimes they make great

24

choices, sometimes they make less than good choices, but

25

prudence of user are very difficult to do.

154

1

So it's frankly very difficult from a consumer

2

perspective to challenge them.

3

you know, not only is this the right choice for this area,

4

but who's the right choice for the region you know

5

especially look at nine wires alternatives.

6

storage, again really we need the Commission to be a little

7

bit more invigorated.

8
9

And again it doesn't look at

Stuff like

We need RTOs to be a little bit more empowered to
direct the transmission for the region that they are

10

serving.

11

and then we can start looking at potential benefits of inter

12

and intraregional planning.

13

really going to be hard to capture those benefits.

14
15
16

So you know I think that's where we need to start,

MR. VANDERBERG

But before we do that it's

Thank you Eric.

Neal?

Neal if

you're speaking you're on mute.
MR. MILLAR:

Okay sorry about that.

I was going

17

to say this is where I was wanting to jump in such for a

18

minute because this is a concern for us in the west and in

19

the ISO in particular.

20

generalizations being spread about all ISO's do this, or all

21

RTO's do this, all transmission owners do this.

22

When I'm hearing broad

There are differences in the different areas and

23

those need to be taken into account.

California is a little

24

unique where CALISO has about 80 percent to the state inside

25

our footprint as well as the small portion of Nevada, so a

155

1

lot of people consider that to be a one state ISO.

Within

2

our region we believe our regional processes have been very

3

effective.

4

We do see they're at a reflection point where we

5

need to advance considerably more transmission to move past

6

the solar development that's gotten us to this point.

7

see we need an inflection point to build, to capitalize on

8

other resource diversity to move beyond the penetration of

9

renewables that we've achieved to this point, even with

We

10

augmenting the solar with considerable storage, we do need

11

to expand the diversity of the fleet and that is going to

12

take more transmission.

13

But those processes have been successful in

14

getting us to this point with quite a bit of transmission

15

being built to support them.

16

interregional side that's where some of the discussions have

17

gotten a bit bogged down, especially by parties who are

18

following the letter of Order 1000 when it came to

19

interregional planning.

20

Admittedly, on the

But we're largely doing that as the most that you

21

shall do as opposed to the floor of what you should do, and

22

then consider future opportunities beyond that.

23

look at competitive solicitation and incentives, we think

24

our competitor solicitation process has been extremely

25

successful.

When we

156

1

We've gone through that process for 12 major

2

projects that were put out for competitive procurement, and

3

7 of those went to independents, and 2 to consortiums that

4

included incumbents, but also included independents.

5

think those processes have been quite successful.

6

So I

So we get concerned when we hear the broad

7

generalizations made about a particular process is

8

completely broken.

9

that's something FERC should certainly take a look at, but

Well there may be cases of that and

10

that's where like I said applying a broad brush at times can

11

be a concern where people have different sorts of issues

12

that they're dealing with, and different sets of

13

circumstances.

14
15
16

MR. VANDERBERG:

Very good.

Thank you Neal.

Richard?
MR. TABORS:

Yeah just I just want to sort of

17

pick up on one of Alison's points, and also on Neal's.

I'm

18

in total agreement that effectively transmission has to be

19

handled regionally.

20

nature is that the ISO's that I work with, which tend to be

21

on the east coast, not California have -- are operating when

22

it comes to transmission you frequently have the feeling

23

that the ISO is owned by the transmission owners in the

24

sense of when you try and get something done you run smack

25

into try and get something true in ISO you run smack into

And my only comment of a negative

157

1

the transmission owners.

2

On a side they use a very different tack on this.

3

I'm in total agreement.

4

a plan.

5

to get interregional.

6

that in order to make any of the goals that any of the

7

states have at this point on decarbonization and the use of

8

transmission, we've got to use the existing transmission

9

more effectively than we do today.

10

I think with Alison that we've got

We've got to get it you know national, and it's got
I would really emphasize the fact

And we're just not doing it.

And so that's the

11

question of how do you go from where we are to a regional

12

interregional transmission system?

13

carbon impact of it, if what I'm really worried about is

14

carbon then the first answer is I got to run the system that

15

I have now better than I do.

16

The answer is -- and the

And oh, by the way, I've got a plan for the

17

future.

18

you're lucky.

19

system more efficient is a one to two year process.

20

get that one to two year process done and move ahead.

21

you.

22
23
24
25

Getting transmission built is a 10 year process if
Getting out there and making the transmission

MR. VANDERBERG:

Great.

Let's

Thank you Richard.

Thank

And

I believe Commissioner Clements has a question.
COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Thanks Eric.

I wanted to

follow-up on Alison's proposal, appreciating everything that

158

1

got said from you know the demand side all the way up to

2

making the current system more efficient.

3

the need that Alison described if you accept her premise.

4

At some point to

And can you talk to me, provide some more

5

specificity Alison?

6

would do?

7

you thought about it enough to provide details around

8

whether or not it lives outside of the RTOs, or is connected

9

to them?

10

Is this something that the Commission

This national entity?

And would it be -- have

I'm just wondering if you have any more specifics.
MS. SILVERSTEIN:

I have a few specifics.

I've

11

been thinking about this and working on it with a few other

12

people.

13

I think there's plenty of room for improvement on these

14

ideas.

15

supported with the intellectual muscle and funds of the

16

Department of Energy because we know that many excellent

17

transmission and planning tools and things like benefits

18

analyses and methodologies have already come out of the

19

Department of Energy and are floating around.

20

And so we haven't worked out all the details yet.

It clearly needs to be empowered by FERC and

It's FERC's job to get transmission built by I

21

assume, or at least to find effective ways to plan and build

22

transmission.

23

to get appropriate participation, rooting, et cetera, and

24

identification of benefits and the cost allocation that

25

follows from that.

It's also FERC's commitment to figure out how

159

1

So I view it as FERC's job to figure out how to

2

whether it is frankly just and reasonable to use a bunch of

3

outmoded benefits calculation methods, and a bunch of overly

4

short horizon benefits timeframes, or cost allocation

5

methods that don't reflect the full scope of beneficiaries

6

from transmission, particularly interregional transmission

7

over not just a 10 or 20 year period, but a 40 or 50 year

8

period.

9

So I think there's a lot of room for FERC to

10

decide that maybe there is an opportunity and a need and

11

justification for broad sweeping reform of almost every

12

element of the transmission planning process.

13

Now clearly small local transmission processes

14

are working.

15

large intraregional in many cases, and large interregional

16

high-voltage transmission backbone is absolutely not

17

working, and so I think that if FERC thinks there is a

18

national benefit to making that happen, I think you have an

19

obligation to pull people together and figure out how to

20

make that happen, and what to do about it.

21

We know how to do that.

But equally clearly

The energy systems integration group is I believe

22

working up a paper that will be made public on this soon,

23

and I think also the folks at the -- Center have been

24

thinking about it a lot and doing some really good

25

foundational work on this question as well thank you.

160

1

COMMISSIONER CLEMENTS:

Thank you and since you

2

brought it up I'll just lob one more question to you and

3

your fellow panelists before turning off my camera.

4

benefits question.

5

consequences, not causes.

6

The

You've spoken about thinking about

We all have there's been several comments

7

inferring that the determination of benefits investment

8

upfront may be different than who benefits from those

9

investments later and I'm just curious if you all could say

10

a little bit more about your thinking on how at least the

11

FERC and appreciating the split jurisdiction on a lot of

12

those questions, or at least multi-layered jurisdiction, how

13

we think about the part that is FERC jurisdictional.

14

Thanks.

15

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Well almost everything that's

16

reliability related is FERC jurisdictional, and that

17

includes things like whether we have -- whether Texas has

18

interconnection to the rest of the nation, and could have

19

gotten black start had we needed it.

20

no.

21

The answer is clearly

And so we could have been deeply out of luck had

22

we not come back from the brink by dropping 25 gig of

23

customer load.

24

of transmission is not merely that it is a supplement to

25

capacity or a way to bring in energy or ramping when you

The consequence of the fundamental benefit

161

1

need it, it's that it creates this foundation of flexibility

2

and optionality.

3

Because again and again we find that we built

4

transmission for one reason, and it turns out to be valuable

5

for 12 others.

6

you know, we built CREZ to be able to develop renewables in

7

west Texas, and it's powering fracking.

8

fastest electric growth of the nation is in west Texas for

9

natural gas wells.

10

It's like the Swiss army knife of the grid,

Where some of the

You may not like them, but transmission

made that, enabled that development.

11

Again and again we build one thing for economics,

12

and it turns out to be reliability essential, or we built it

13

for reliability, and it turns out to lower everybody's

14

market power and delivered cost.

15

delivering.

16

credit to those optionality benefits, wholly apart from the

17

facilitation of decarbonization, or the reduction of market

18

power, and those kinds of things.

19
20
21

So even if we -- I don't think we give enough

And so there's a much broader set of benefits
that need to be recognized and accredited, thank you.
MR. VANDERBERG:

22

and Eric with hands raised.

23

on that question as well?

24
25

Transmission just keeps

MR. HARTMAN:

Thank you Alison.

I see Devin

Would you two like to weigh in

Sure and if it's okay Eric, I'd

like to chime in on the first question that Commissioner

162

1

Clements posed as well.

2

is very interesting because it addresses the institutional

3

question which I think really lies at the fundamental

4

element of how to fix interregional planning processes.

5

So first off I think Alison's idea

To a point Neal made earlier the quality of

6

transmission planning varies a lot by region.

CAISO, in my

7

opinion, does a lot of things better than some of the other

8

regions for what it's worth.

9

though it's very clear that something's broken, and just

When it comes to interregional

10

tinkering around the edges, we don't know how much benefit

11

we'll get out of that.

12

It's important keeping in mind to another point

13

that was raised that you know these are voluntary

14

organizations, largely where membership is driven by

15

incumbent transmission owners.

16

some favoritism to those incumbents.

17

admitted to that before, and so we have to rate the bottom

18

of the question to what extent do we actually have

19

independent transmission planning framework in place -- it's

20

actually for interregional right?

21

There's always going to be
RTO staff have even

And this problem hasn't even been isolated, just

22

the transmission to look at like what seems management

23

issues have been lingering in the state of the market's

24

reports or recommendations for market monitors for years

25

now.

A lot of this goes into interregional trade right?

163

1

There's always going to be incumbent interests

2

that do not have some interest and enhancing the ability to

3

import power.

4

governance process, well we're going to have a challenge,

5

especially if RTOs consider on the first among equals.

6

And if there's a dominant player in the

And so I think that Alison's idea is one idea to

7

definitely address that institutional problem.

And then on

8

the benefit side part of it is to make sure that we're

9

holistically including all categories of transmission

10

benefits in the integrative process rather than the silo.

11

mentioned economic and reliability projects, but there's

12

also the public policy objectives of the state that Order

13

1000 acknowledges.

14

I

I know that in the past that's been controversial

15

in terms of how it's been viewed as legitimate by some past

16

leadership at FERC.

17

that as an exogenous and put that as something that is not

18

-- should not be in the judgment of the Commission to you

19

know, to validate or invalidate, but just to say things like

20

state's RPS policies are there.

21

going, and we need to be building that into the input rather

22

than kind of putting it in that separate bin all together.

23

I would stress the need to just treat

This is where they're

And so we really need to do a more integrated

24

cost of some of the benefits, the valuation side which will

25

really help the four regional.

It's helpful with

164

1

interregional, but unless we address that fundamental

2

institutional dilemma, I'm not sure how many strides we can

3

make on that front.

4

MR. VANDERBERG:

5

MR. HEINLE:

Great thank you Devin.

Eric?

Thank you Eric and I also wanted to

6

address Commissioner Clements great question about cost

7

benefit.

8

old saying was reliability at least cost.

9

need to sort of maybe change that paradigm a little bit and

10

You know from a ratepayer standpoint you know the
And I think we

look instead for cost effective reliability, sustainability.

11

And part of reaching that is when you look at

12

something like transmission you look at the value of that

13

for example, it brings to decarbonization, and maybe you say

14

you know this transmission asset it's construction will

15

result in your know a cost of carbon reduction by such and

16

such.

17

And for that reason loads should be assigned

18

because they benefit from that reduction to that cost in the

19

transmission in addition to sort of traditional generator

20

pays for transmission upgrades.

21

a little more trickier to do with reliability and resilience

22

because as we've discussed here today, finding those metrics

23

for what creates reliability and resilience, and what the

24

value of reliability and resilience are, are a little more

25

difficult.

But I think also, and it's

165

1

But I think you could do something again very

2

similar where you could say this transmission asset you

3

know, brings a certain level of reliability or resilience to

4

the system, and again that reliability and resilience has

5

value per load, and loads certainly pay for things that have

6

clearly defined benefits for it.

7

And again we have to make sure that those

8

benefits are clearly defined, and that you know the modeling

9

is reasonably good, but I think if we do that, that is one

10

way to address the cost allocation issue.

11

MR. VANDERBERG:

12

MR. TABORS:

Thank you Eric.

Richard?

Yeah just a real quick comment on

13

this one and that is that a lot of the work that we've been

14

doing lately in my world really does work on the stochastics

15

of resource adequacy, and one element of that is in fact the

16

ability to really price reliability provided by transmission

17

-- in other words, value economically the value that

18

transmission is providing, or I might indicate not providing

19

if you look at the economics of it.

20
21
22

So just a comment back to wherever Commissioner
Clements started that question.
MR. VANDERBERG:

Very good thank you Richard.

I

23

believe that is all the hand raises.

So we have about a

24

half hour left in our panel.

25

I want to make sure that the other Commissioners here have

Time is really flying, and so

166

1

an opportunity to ask questions as well, so I'll turn to

2

Chairman Glick to see if he has any questions.

3

CHAIRMAN GLICK:

4

question at least, and maybe another.

5

maybe Richard you had mentioned earlier you talked about

6

earlier the need to make things in the transmission grid

7

more efficient in addition to going towards transmission

8

capacity.

9

Thank you Eric.

I did have one

But if I could start

And I agree with both points actually.
I was wondering in addition to dynamic line

10

ratings and in the ratings and so on, are there other things

11

we could be doing, or should be doing or looking at in terms

12

of improving the efficiency of the existing grid?

13

MR. TABORS:

I suspect the answer Mr. Chairman is

14

you know we work on topology optimization.

15

optimization is nothing more than -- I say nothing more,

16

very wise software that basically allows us to look at how

17

to reroute power through the transmission grid.

18

And topology

And so the answer in part is you know we know how

19

to do it.

We've known for a while how to do it, but the

20

question is how do you get -- how do you get the

21

transmission owner to say, or the transmission

22

owner/operator to say yes, we'll look at the alternatives

23

that you're bringing to us and then make a decision as to

24

whether from our analytic perspective, that's a good thing

25

to do, or not a good thing to do.

167

1

So I think there's that channel down there, and I

2

think you know if you really were to raise a flag and say

3

hey, give me a bunch of good ideas about how to run the

4

transmission system more effectively, like I having I think

5

-- well like will occur with I suspect the technical

6

conference in maybe September, whenever the next one on

7

transmission is.

8

You know I think there are a lot of ideas.

There

9

are a lot of bright people running around out there that I'm

10

not convinced really look at this problem as being as truly

11

important as it is.

12

have, and we're not doing a very good job of operating them.

13
14
15

These are huge asset bases that we

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Richard.

I also see

Alison with her hand up.
MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Thank you.

I need to support

16

11 years of my professional career by reminding us that

17

there's lots of synchrophasor data enabled analytical

18

solutions that can be used to operate the grid more

19

effectively.

20

And I also want to point out that we could be

21

using it -- at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we

22

could be using geographically and topologically targeted

23

energy efficiency and demand response to help decongest the

24

grid, and to improve voltage and deliver a lot of ancillary

25

services that would take some of the pressure off the

168

1

transmission system.

2
3

Thank you.

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Alison.

No more hands

up Mr. Chairman.

4

CHAIRMAN GLICK:

Thanks Eric.

Actually Alison,

5

that's a very good segue into my second and probably final

6

question which is you've mentioned earlier the importance of

7

energy efficiency and I agree wholeheartedly with what you

8

said.

9

extremely important element that we're going to be spending

10

a lot of time with over the next year or so, but you know I

11

think there's a dichotomy and you know this better than

12

anybody, between you know the items we have authority over

13

at FERC, of course the items the states have.

14

Obviously, transmission is an

So it's not just energy efficiency, it's also

15

DERs behind the meter, generation facilities that don't

16

necessarily compete or participate in the wholesale markets,

17

but also who do play a huge role addressing resource

18

adequacy and reliability issues, especially in terms of

19

improving our resilience in the face of extreme weather.

20

I'm wondering, you know you've actually worked

21

with FERC, you obviously spent a lot of time on the state

22

side as well.

23

as to how we could address those issues given our

24

jurisdictional constraints and limitations?

25

I was wondering if you had any advice for us

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

One consideration is a long

169

1

time ago when I was at FERC, one of the things that we did

2

was to -- we were trying to solve the southwest congestion

3

issue.

4

transmission built, one of the things that we actually did

5

was to tell the ISO New England that they could build

6

transmission, but if we all truly believed that energy

7

efficiency and demand response were valid alternatives, as

8

non-wired solutions, then anything that they did within on

9

energy efficiency and demand response significantly

And because it was taking a long time to get new

10

alleviated that transmission constraint that they could

11

implement within the same period as the transmission

12

approvals were pending would be uplifted.

13

That they could implement it and those costs

14

would be uplifted across all of New England customers in the

15

same way that the corresponding transmission solution would

16

have been.

17

state regulators who are going to be bearing the costs of

18

new transmission that FERC approves, that there are multiple

19

ways to skin these cats, and that there are three sets of

20

costs that need to be compared.

21

That's one possibility.

Another is to remind

One of them is the classic transmission and

22

supply side solution.

The second is the -- what are the

23

non-wire supply alternatives or compliments that can help

24

make this happen, and the third is if we can't do any of

25

these how bad could it get?

And invite people to compare

170

1

these three sets of costs and consequences, and pick their

2

poison.

3

Because if we can achieve solutions that combine

4

non-wire solutions and transmission and clean energy

5

solutions on the supply side, with a significantly better

6

benefits on lower cost solution then getting into the

7

climate change and disaster car wreck that's going to cause

8

the kinds of human and social and economic costs that we saw

9

here in Texas in February.

10

If I were back in my state regulator role I would

11

be pretty willing to help make some of those energy

12

efficiency side solutions happen.

13

having the option to help control that fate.

14

ordered by the federal Congress -- hypothetically assuming

15

that Congress were willing to act, it would be ideal to be

16

able to design our own fate and pick our own preferred

17

solutions rather than just saying you're not the boss of me,

18

and let my people sit in the cold rather than be protected.

19

Thank you.

And I would also prefer
If to being

20

CHAIRMAN GLICK:

Thank you.

21

MR. VANDERBERG:

Does anyone else want to comment

22

on that?

23

Neal and then I see Eric and Devin with their hand raised

24

also, so Neal first then Eric and Devin.

25

I believe Neal has his hand raised, so let's go to

MR. MILLAR:

Yes.

And thank you for the chance

171

1

to comment on this.

2

considerable emphasis on energy efficiency.

3

capture demand response programs in a way they can

4

effectively help, not only on a system-wide basis, but we

5

also employ demand response programs in our local resource

6

planning as well, so very heavy emphasis on those programs.

7

Obviously, like in California there's
Trying to

That being said though we are also expecting

8

increased electrification both in transportation as well as

9

buildings, that despite those efforts we do see upward

10

pressure on our load forecast going forward, and we do think

11

that will put increased pressure on the transmission system

12

to deliver, as well as access the need to access other types

13

of resources that we currently can't capture with the

14

transmission system we have.

15

Offshore wind, out of state wind projects and so

16

forth will push beyond the existing systems capability.

17

while we put a great deal of emphasis on those other

18

alternatives on the demand side, whether it's energy

19

efficiency, demand response programs, we do see that we are

20

going to have to be pushing the boundaries and getting some

21

additional transmission built to capitalize and to allow

22

those other industries to decarbonize.

23

So

We just can't get there with the measures that

24

have gotten us to this point.

So I just wanted to be clear

25

about that, so I hope that helps.

Thank you.

172

1

MR. VANDERBERG:

Okay.

Thanks.

I think Devin

2

we're going to go to Devin and Eric and then I know Alison

3

wants to circle back and make a clarification after that.

4

So let's go to Devin and Eric.

5

MR. HARTMAN:

Sure.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I

6

think it's encouraging to hear the DER/general demand side

7

of the equation being brought up in all of this.

8

think it's one of the big lessons learned through the Texas

9

and California here recently too, where a lot of the initial

And I

10

conversation was very fixated on what went wrong on the

11

supply side.

12

But going forward as much as a reliability policy

13

conversation has to be on the demand side.

14

colleague of the former ERCOT market would have been great

15

on this is the fall out of Texas, and we've fortunately been

16

able to get a lot of traction on it.

17

Alison and my

It is for the Commission given jurisdictional

18

elements, but going forward there's a few principles that

19

would really be helpful going forward and that's thinking

20

about the Commission's role of going forward and

21

systematically identifying how to reduce barriers to entry,

22

information asymmetries and transaction costs, especially as

23

it relates to really all forms and DERs, but also being more

24

cognizant than we have the potential to unlock so many

25

opportunities to provide a physical hedge to reliability.

173

1

But historically it always had to be industrial

2

CHP or pretty much nothing else.

3

portion of technology has emerged, and really the

4

reliability value of investments is so much greater

5

downstream, and the ability for a lot of these entities to

6

physically hedge just needs to be there, and it's very

7

important for the system overall.

8

help also on the resilient side from the bounce back angle

9

too.

10

Now we're seeing just a

And a lot of them can

So there's a ton of opportunity to manage

11

emerging reliability threats better with emerging

12

technology, and the last point I'll really make is when we

13

think about tangible forms especially for DR we need to

14

think about more opportunities for unlocking both economic

15

DR, as well as emergency DR.

16

And one of the things that we missed out on in

17

the economic side I should say, we're looking at both the

18

supply side treatment of it, DR as a supply side equivalent

19

which is naturally difficult because it's an imperfect

20

substitute for generation in many forms, but also really get

21

in deep DR we need to think about cultivating pressure on

22

the demand, and that goes into the overarching constructs

23

behind the role of energy and ancillary services and

24

capacity as well.

25

And then on the emergency side, what we really

174

1

need to be thinking about a bare minimum, starting to have

2

better emergency protocols that can isolate and control

3

power flows better to high value those uses, both to avoid

4

outages for the customers that value it the most, but then

5

also making sure that the ones that were the value of

6

offload is very duration sensitive, that we can get those

7

customers prioritized on the restoration side.

8
9

So there's really both a massive amount of work
that can be done on this front, and it's huge both for

10

adjusting to avoid the more extreme weather, as well as

11

integrating those type of technologies that are going to

12

help assist in decarbonizing, thank you.

13

MR. HEINLE:

Chairman Glick thank you for the

14

question and I think you know at the risk of I'm a state

15

employee, so at the risk of getting in trouble for blurring

16

the states and federal boundaries that we certainly support,

17

the Commission can play an important role incenting.

18

Resources like DR, DER storage and you now it did a great

19

job with Order 841, Order 2222, those were significant steps

20

forward in breaking down barriers for these resources to

21

participate in the market.

22

But you know I think we need to look at other

23

options and other ways to again encourage those resources.

24

We talked a lot about incentives from the supply side with

25

respect to capacity markets, with respect to energy markets.

175

1

We also need to look at incentives for load side

2

participation and response to operations in the grid.

3

You know we should explore whether there are

4

options in terms of islanding that also makes sense for the

5

Commission to encourage through an order that might be

6

similar to 2222 or 841.

7

at ways to incent the states to do the right thing.

8

And so I think really again looking

I think most states want to do the right thing,

9

and providing the basis for the state commissions then to go

10

to their respective ratepayers and say you know, we now have

11

a concept that allows us to support these behind the meter

12

resources and these load resources as a way to hedge against

13

extreme weather and other resilience factors.

14

So again I think creating the right incentives,

15

the right atmosphere and opportunities for those resources

16

to you know really flourish is something the Commission can

17

do, so thank you.

18
19
20

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Eric.

And back to

Alison.
MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Thank you and to close out this

21

important question Mr. Chairman, I want to be the first to

22

acknowledge the customer side, demand side resources are not

23

going to -- or distributed energy resources broadly, will

24

never obviate the need for more transmission and generation.

25

Let's be absolutely frank about that.

176

1

But I like Devin's framing of demand and DER

2

fixes as a physical hedge for reliability, and let me be

3

more explicit about that.

4

like energy efficiency keep customers alive against the

5

almost certain consequences of grid failure.

6

the grid is going to fail again, and again, and again.

7

For resilience purposes measures

And we know

Whether it's local, whether it's a city or

8

whether it's God forbid another ERCOT.

So with increasing

9

heatwaves, increased higher temperatures, colder cold, more

10

flooding, anything that we can do to change customer

11

premises to keep them alive when the grid fails for whatever

12

reason is an investment that is probably worth doing.

13

The other reason that these resources have value

14

is we can do them faster than we can do transmission sadly,

15

which those of you who have done energy efficiency know it's

16

not fast or easy, but God knows it's faster as PV and

17

storage and a lot of other things, and building new

18

interregional transmission.

19

So that doing more energy efficiency and

20

distributed resources gives us time.

It reduces stress on

21

the grid.

22

air-conditioners, and more energy efficient heaters, we

23

lower the odds of the next summer heatwave failure, or the

24

next ERCOT disaster, because we've lessened demand at that

25

peak.

Every time we do more energy efficient

177

1

And given us more tools to stabilize with demand

2

flexibility, and it gives us more time to figure out how to

3

work this whole new set of markets and resources that are

4

new to all of us frankly, and we are in unstudied space.

5

So the more that we can use demand side resources

6

and distributed resources to buy time and destress the

7

supply side in the operation of the grid, the better off

8

we're all going to be.

9

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GLICK:

Thank you.

I just wanted to

10

follow-up on that point.

11

first of all.

12

new transmission capacity, but it does take time.

13

an easy issue.

14

include efficiency, behind the meter generation, demand

15

response, but also as Richard mentioned earlier, making the

16

existing grid more efficient, or operating the existing grid

17

more efficiently.

18

I agree with you wholeheartedly

We definitely need a significant amount of
It's not

We need to look at alternatives which

So I think you know kind of all of the above

19

situation, but I think we have a big challenge on our hands,

20

and I think we need to figure out a way to take advantage of

21

all of our options.

22

Thank you Eric.

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you.

At this time I'll

23

just ask any other Commissioner questions?

No.

Okay.

Well

24

we are actually near the end of the panel.

We have about 15

25

minutes left, so one thing I would like to do as we look

178

1

towards closing would be just to go through all of our

2

panelists and again, we have a couple of our Commissioners

3

here today with us, and I know it's difficult, but I wanted

4

to see if we can boil it down to one or two things that we

5

should take away -- we being this Commission, as action

6

items from this discussion.

7

If folks are able to kind of boil it down to kind

8

of one or two action items that we should take away from

9

this I think very informative wide-ranging discussion that

10

would be really helpful to kind of personalize what we've

11

heard today.

12

start with Judith.

13

So interested to hear from everyone, so I will

MS. CURRY:

Okay thank you.

I guess from my

14

perspective from the weather and climate space, I'll

15

reiterate the point that there's a lot of information out

16

there on the table that's not being adequately used from the

17

weather forecasts to information about future scenarios, not

18

just from the climate model, but there's a lot more that we

19

know about the climate system in terms of natural

20

variability and things that we can expect in the coming

21

decades.

22

In terms of what we understand about the climate

23

system we're on much more comfortable ground going out 30

24

years in the future, since we're talking about going out to

25

2100 it's much more uncertain.

So the extent that we can

179

1

take advantage of the greater confidence that we have in our

2

understanding of how the next 30 years might play out, I

3

think would be a useful focus because that's the lifetime of

4

a lot of infrastructure, and certain things.

5

I mean we don't need to figure out what's going

6

to happen in 2100.

7

weather time scale, and here's where the probabilistic

8

forecast comes in, we have information out to week three,

9

you know, probabilities.

10
11

And the other point is you know on the

I mean our understanding and our

confidence increases as we get closer.
But there's a lot of information there that can

12

be used in the context of decision-making, whether it's

13

probabilistic based decision-making, or whether it's tied to

14

operational things, or scheduled maintenance for power

15

plants, things like that.

16

You know paying attention to a possible cold wave

17

in week three with all those power plants in Texas being

18

down for maintenance, that's something that the information

19

was there to say don't shut those power plants down for

20

maintenance.

21

information out there that we can make better use of you

22

know in the sort of climate and weather space.

23

So again, just to reiterate, there's a lot of

MR. VANDERBERG:

Great, thank you Judith.

24

we'll go to Neal followed by Mark.

25

MR. MILLAR:

Thank you.

Next

First, I'd just like to

180

1

reiterate and especially point to some of the comments made

2

by panelists in the first session, that the climate change

3

adaptation covers a whole range of activities from detailed

4

engineering efforts around standards for construction and so

5

forth, through transmission planning all the way to the

6

longer term resource planning activities.

7

just a single topic, this is a whole spectrum.

8
9

So this isn't

And that the climate change considerations need
to really be baked into processes whether they're fine as

10

they are, or need to be redesigned.

11

considerations need to be baked into all of those planning

12

processes, so that we're reliable at every stage of the way.

13

These kinds of

And in doing that we also need to make sure that

14

we, like I said, and I know that I mentioned this before,

15

but we really need to take into account the local challenges

16

that people are dealing with that are specific to the

17

geography as opposed to applying broad brush solutions that

18

cause additional work without necessarily addressing the

19

challenges that that area itself is experiencing.

20

So that's just one of our major concerns we keep

21

coming back to on trying to effectively integrate climate

22

change adaptation into the rest of the transmission design,

23

planning, and resource planning considerations.

24

you for the opportunity to speak on the panel today.

25

appreciate it.

And thank
We do

181

1

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Neal.

If I may I'd

2

like to follow-up on one thing you said really quickly.

3

Baking in you know climate change into all aspects of the

4

assessment process.

5

that?

6

ISO, at least to some extent, so could you just unpack that

7

a little bit more?

Can you talk a little bit more about

It sounds like that's something you've done at the

8

MR. MILLAR:

Well one example for is -- sure,

9

I'll touch on two quick examples.

One that was specific to

10

climate change is our consideration of the need for a more

11

diverse resource fleet that California has done a lot of

12

decarbonization over the last decade focusing on solar

13

resources, and now augmenting with storage.

14

We do see thought that that caps out with this

15

inflection point where we need to access other types of

16

resources.

17

review of what all the modeling techniques tell you is the

18

right solution.

19

dealing with today I doubt can ever be successfully built

20

into a probabilistic analysis.

21

And that's where we need to apply a second

Because a lot of the parameters we're

You know if you try to calculate the odds of a

22

forest fire being so severe it creates its own weather

23

system.

24

that have to be considered at some level, just won't find

25

their way through a probabilistic analysis to actually

Like these kinds of issues that are real to us, and

182

1

affect an outcome.

2

So that's where we see that we always need to

3

also apply that pragmatic consideration of what your models

4

are telling you to land on a path forward.

5

something we did employ, but it was for a different cause,

6

but we did employ this type of technique looking at the San

7

Francisco greater Bay area, and looking at earthquake risks.

8
9

This is

Where the obvious solution was to start building
more transmission.

But what it really led to was a hard

10

main, instead of the main grid, a hardening of the

11

sub-transmission system which is where the vulnerabilities

12

actually is arrested.

13

scenarios of extremes of earthquake events.

14

And that involved looking at various

So this type of consideration being applied above

15

the conventional planning process we think is critical.

16

it's not a replacement.

17

mill the ball on an N minus 1 outage, and cause a disruption

18

in an area, that's going to haunt us too.

19

well as, not instead of.

20

And

After all is said and done if we

MR. VANDERBERG:

So this is as

Thanks Eric.
Yeah, thank you Neal.

Very good

21

point.

22

an N minus 1 outage, it caused a big blackout, so we

23

certainly can't take our eye off the ball there either, so.

24

Let's go to Mark, followed by Devin.

25

We are not that far removed from 2011 where we had

MR. LAUBY:

I have two points. One is of course

183

1

start looking again at planning in the three timeframes.

2

And certainly, we're looking at long term as some of the

3

bookends, consider in back in the day what happens if all

4

nuclear plants have shut down?

5

scenarios look like so that you can make a plan around those

6

and to a sensible resource mix that's going to deliver the

7

energy, the reliability services, and the ramping that

8

you're going to need.

9

Look at what those kinds of

And it can be a multitude of different solutions,

10

including transmission, energy efficiency, all the whole

11

host that we talked about and more.

12

shorter term start planning that season ahead and use all

13

the tools available to you and of course in the day of, and

14

have a rolling 21 day because you get more information as

15

you go forward, so think about that framework, and build new

16

methods and tools and planning around those.

17

And then from more of a

Second it's a design basis.

What we have today,

18

and what we've been designing to is not I don't think going

19

to be acceptable in the future in the reliability of the

20

future when we have a society that is very much electrified,

21

very much dependent on good, clean, affordable electricity.

22

We need to understand what those implications,

23

are, how we mix the smart grids with the long distance

24

transmission we're talking about and the energy efficiency

25

and all that, how we tie that all in to be able to get to a

184

1

design

basis that delivers the kind of reliability security

2

resilience that we expect in the grid.

3

MR. VANDERBERG:

4

MR. HARTMAN:

Thank you.

Thank you Mark.

Thank you.

Devin?

I think climate change

5

simply makes a more compelling case to do a better job but

6

for reliability policy.

7

down to a couple simple concepts that are a little bit

8

harder to execute in practice.

9

thought infused into all of our reliability institutions,

10

Plain and simple.

And that boils

One is getting economic

and decision-making processes.

11

And then the second point is getting our

12

reliability institutions better coordinated.

To the first

13

point for example, if you're talking about a design basis

14

for future standards to Mark's point.

15

in standards development or the reconsideration of standards

16

in the NERC domain, we need to factor in at least for a

17

major consideration an objective of trying to maximize net

18

benefits to consumers.

If you're developing

19

That's ultimately who we care about.

But then

20

also on the coordination side we need to talk -- we need to

21

recognize that there is an increasing codependence between

22

all these different sets of actors that influence the

23

investment and asset management of both the generation side,

24

transmission as well as in the downstream distribution and

25

DER space.

185

1

And right now there's such confusion of what

2

institutions are responsible for what, and a lot of this

3

came out in response to the California and Texas events.

4

really stepping up to make sure that we can get better

5

higher-quality information and coordination infused within

6

all the players in those eco-systems across all the

7

different types of reliability policy instruments would be

8

incredibly important for the grid of the future, thank you.

9
10

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Devin.

So

We'll go to

Alison and then Richard.

11

MS. SILVERSTEIN:

Thank you.

I wanted to build

12

on what Devin was saying in a different way.

13

things he was saying was we need planning methods to be

14

consistent, and we need them to be improved.

15

hard me say I think that needs to start with benefits,

16

methods and metrics identification.

17

start working with the Department of Energy and its

18

components to start thinking about some of the elements I

19

suggested for the scope of a national electric transmission

20

authority and what it might do to improve broadly planning

21

methods, benefits, calculations et cetera.

22

One of the

And as you've

And I encourage FERC to

The second thing is again that stuff is going to

23

happen.

I reframed that from the classic framing.

Stuff is

24

going to happen on the grid, and it's going to fail big.

25

It's going to fail small.

It's going to fail for a number

186

1

of reasons, including climate change and normal weather

2

variability.

3

And so, as well as gas cyberthreats and a whole

4

lot of other stuff that we keep thinking should be worse

5

than it is, and I'm surprised that we haven't had cyber take

6

down the entire grid already.

7

invest hard and push hard all of the no regrets insurance

8

and mitigation measures because we need stuff that's going

9

to pay off every single day against every single threat, not

So I think that I beg you to

10

just the mitigation measures that are big expensive

11

hardening one off's.

12

We probably need some of them, and I'm sure

13

they'll be cost-effective against whatever it is, but

14

there's so many other things that you can do to keep us safe

15

every single day, and that are going to pay off with bill

16

savings and job creation, and people's lives.

17

shouldn't have to wait for big heroic measures to get those

18

kinds of benefits.

And we

Thank you.

19

MR. VANDERBERG:

20

MR. TABORS:

Thank you Alison.

Okay.

Richard?

Two points I guess.

One is

21

that I'll follow-up on something Judith said which is that

22

we're not using information that's available very

23

effectively, and I think the example I would use is that we

24

work with IBM the weather company where we get 4 kilometer

25

by 4 kilometer grid weather forecasting information off of

187

1

what we use about 20 variables for forecasting, both wind

2

and solar.

3

So there's just a tremendous amount of

4

information there that's available that generally speaking

5

is not being used in a coordinated fashion.

6

is that essentially I think we really need to work and

7

develop better use of scenarios, and I use a terrible

8

example from years ago when I was working with colleagues on

9

oil forecasting, and that was you know forecasting oil

10

And the second

prices, looking at what happened historically.

11

And in our case, forecasting anything historical

12

is a little bit like driving down Pike's Peak looking only

13

in your rearview mirror.

14

So thank you for allowing me to be part of this today.

15
16

It just doesn't work very well.

MR. VANDERBERG:

All right.

Thank you Richard.

And 5:45 turning to Eric to take us home, thank you Eric.

17

MR. HEINLE:

Okay.

Thank you Eric and I'll be

18

quick and leave everybody with just two thoughts.

First,

19

again let's look to least cost options first, you know the

20

nice benefit of them is they are often also the quickest to

21

implement.

22

coordination, which certainly I think can help benefit

23

things like potential gas generation outages is broad as

24

that is it's probably easier to do that than to build a

25

bunch of new pipelines and a bunch of new gas storage.

Whether something like an improved gas electric

188

1

Looking at as other panelists have mentioned.

2

Making sure we're using all the information that we have,

3

all the data we have to informed RTO and utility operations

4

so that they are best prepared to mitigate these.

5

suggesting that information and coordination alone will

6

solve all of our problems, but before we go the next step,

7

and you know and put iron in the ground let's make sure

8

we're taking advantage of what we have on the system and

9

using it as offensively as possible.

10

And not

And then the last point is please keep the

11

consumer involved.

12

opportunity to participate in today's panel.

13

being at the table.

14

not just sort of in the planning and the discussion and the

15

modeling, but keep us involved in helping mitigate these

16

issues through consumer side tools like demand response,

17

DERs, all the sorts of behind the meter things.

18

Again, I really appreciate the
Consumers like

We have a lot to add, and keep involved

Make sure those are incentivized correctly.

Make

19

sure the barriers are reduced, so that consumers can you

20

know, participate.

21

everything whether it's you know new investments, or the

22

cost of an outage, and so consumers really should be at the

23

center of solving all these issues as well, so thank you

24

again.

25

Ultimately consumers bear the costs for

MR. VANDERBERG:

Thank you Eric and thank you to

189

1

everybody.

2

just want to one more time say to all of our panelists for

3

participating, we had an excellent discussion.

4

incredibly information and so I want to again thank you for

5

taking time out of your busy days to join us for this very

6

helpful technical conference.

7

That brings us to the end of our time today.

It was

So with that thank you to everybody and we will

8

reconvene tomorrow afternoon for the next set of panels.

9

Thank you.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I

(Whereupon the technical conference adjourned at
5:47 p.m. to reconvene the next day at 1:00 p.m.)

190

1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

2
3

This is to certify that the attached proceeding

4

before the FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION in the

5

Matter of:

6

Name of Proceeding:

7

Technical Conference to Discuss Climate Change,

8

Extreme Weather & Electric System Reliability

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Docket No.:

AD21-13-000

16

Place:

Washington, DC

17

Date:

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

18

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original

19

transcript thereof for the file of the Federal Energy

20

Regulatory Commission, and is a full correct transcription

21

of the proceedings.

22
23
24

Gaynell Catherine

25

Official Reporter


File Typeapplication/pdf
AuthorMark Jagan
File Modified2021-06-07
File Created2021-06-07

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy