Part 3: New England Needs Natural Gas
in Order to Fully and Swiftly Retire 8,300 MW of “At-Risk” Coal- and Oil-Fired
Generation Capacity
As detailed
in Parts 1 and 2, New England is facing a current energy crisis. The solution is adding natural gas pipeline
capacity to the region as soon as possible, coupled with investments in energy
efficiency and renewables. However, the
current crisis could get much worse with the anticipated retirement of almost
one quarter of the New England’s existing electric generation capacity.
The regional
grid operator, ISO New England (ISO), has initiated a “Strategic Transmission Analysis” to shed light on the expected retirement
of 8,300 MW of existing coal- and oil-fired generation capacity. More specifically, ISO sought to:
- “Evaluate the reliability impacts associated with the retirement of 28, 40+ year-old coal- and oil-fired resources by 2020” and
- “Determine whether these retirements totaling 8.3 GW pose transmission security or resource adequacy issues.”
The
generation capacity that ISO identified to be “at risk” is inefficient,
expensive, highly polluting, and far past its useful life:
The Strategic Transmission Analysis determined that New England would be challenged to meet its 2020 Installed Capacity Requirement (detailed in Part 2) “absent replacements, repowering or the addition of new resources.” To reach this conclusion, ISO evaluated 3 scenarios:
- Scenario 1: Existing generation with no new generation
- Scenario 2: At-risk resources replaced at the Hub, and critical resources are retained at existing sites
- Scenario 3: At-risk resources are replaced at the Hub, and critical resources are repowered at existing sites
The “Hub” is an area of the regional electric grid located western and
central Massachusetts framed by major electric infrastructure such as
high-voltage transmission lines and substations. Because of this infrastructure, the Hub is an
electrically unconstrained area of the grid, meaning that power generated
within or delivered to this infrastructure can be reliably dispersed to almost
all parts of the New England system under most grid operating conditions. Because
generation located at or interconnected with the Hub is in the unconstrained
“Rest of Pool” pricing region, cheaper generation located here will have the maximum
price-lowering impact for New England.
In Scenario
1, ISO found “no more than 950 MW may be retired without causing reliability
problems.” This means that despite it
being uneconomic and harmful to the environment for old coal- and oil-fired
generators to operate, ISO could allow only 950 MW of 8,300 MW to retire. It would be forced to offer above-market
“reliability-must-run” contracts the remaining 7,350 MW of capacity to entice its
continued operation.
In Scenario
2, ISO found that all “at-risk” generation could retire, except 1,350 MW at
critical resource sites. System
transmission constraints would require “at-risk” resources to remain
operational in Connecticut and southeastern Massachusetts. In order to retire 6,950 MW of “at-risk”
capacity, however, up to 5,100 MW of replacement resources would be required to
be constructed at, or integrated with, the Hub.
In Scenario
3, ISO found that all “at-risk” generation could reliably retire if 400 MW was
repowered in Connecticut, 500 MW was repowered in southeastern Massachusetts,
and approximately 5,100 MW of new generation capacity was constructed at, or
integrated with, the Hub.
The simple
upshot of ISO’s study, which included 800 MW of efficiency being added, is that
if New England wants to safely retire 8,300 MW of aging coal- and oil-fired
generation capacity, it must construct at least 5,900 MW of new generation. Of the 5,900 MW, 900 must be specifically
sited in Connecticut and Massachusetts due to electric transmission
constraints. The remaining 5,000 MW
should be constructed at, or integrated with, the Hub. Constructing at the Hub reduces the need to
build transmission to the Hub. Once
electricity gets to the Hub, it can flow unconstrained to all parts of New
England. “If substitute resources are not available, only 950 MW of the
existing 8,300 MW of older oil and coal resources will be able to retire without
causing reliability problems.”
How
to Meet the Recognized Need for 5,900 MW of New Generation
As
previously discussed in Part 2, generation technologies have different
attributes. Coal and oil should be off
the table for their cost and environmental impact. Wind and solar are intermittent and cannot
provide energy on-demand. Moreover,
there is little or no wind potential in central Massachusetts. It is unlikely that nuclear capacity will be
constructed in New England in the intermediate future due to fierce
opposition. Hydro resources have been
declining in New England, as some environmental groups advocate for
free-flowing rivers and fight to remove many dams. Moreover, there are no large rivers flowing
through central Massachusetts. What’s left? The answer is natural-gas-fired generation,
which happens to have the suite of attributes necessary for further integration
of intermittent renewable energy. Thus,
New England needs to ensure that any new natural-gas fired generation has
access the sufficient natural gas pipeline capacity to ramp to full levels when
needed. Increasing reliance on wind and
solar will magnify the need for increased natural gas pipeline capacity capable
of reliably serving existing and new natural gas-fired generation capacity on a
no-notice basis.
New
gas-fired generation will initially serve in a base-load (running most of the
time) or intermediate (following predictable demand) role to replace existing
coal- and oil-fired units. In the longer
term, with increasing renewable penetration, these units, and the natural gas
pipeline capacity that serves them, will be needed to serve a ramping and
balancing function to smooth out variable wind, solar, and hydro production.
What Pipeline Projects
are Best-Suited to Supply the Hub, Lower Cost, and Balance Renewables?
The Tennessee gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C.’s “Northeast Energy Direct”
project is configured in a way that will maximize the ability to, and minimize
the cost of, expanding gas-fired generation at and near the Hub and provide the
flexible infrastructure in the long-term that will allow such new generation to
reliably serve its future ramping and balancing function for renewables. The Northeast Energy Direct project, along
with the existing Tennessee Gas Pipeline, would closely track the contours of
the Hub, and over 90% of it would be co-located along existing utility
corridors (e.g., where electric transmission already exists).
However, the
convenience of the Northeast Energy Direct for Hub-based generation does not
mean other proposed pipelines are not important. Spectra Energy’s proposed “Access Northeast”
project, located in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and
Southern Massachusetts, is important too because it will help to eliminate New
England’s gas pipeline capacity deficiency and serve local distribution gas
companies and generators.
In a future post, I will detail how much pipeline capacity is needed to substantially reduce or eliminate New England’s pipeline capacity deficit, and thus reduce our electricity and natural gas prices to levels enjoyed everywhere else in the country.
Conclusion:
To attain
the three goals of: (1) reducing energy costs; (2) increasing efficiency and
renewables; and (3) eliminating coal- and oil-fired generation, New England
desperately needs natural gas pipeline capacity. Natural gas pipeline constraints, not the
price of the commodity, are imposing a multi-billion dollar annual “energy tax”
on electricity consumers and revitalizing the region’s antiquated coal- and
oil-fired generators. Energy efficiency
and renewables will help, but not to the extent New England needs to lower
costs. Further, from a grid reliability
standpoint, increasing intermittent energy from solar and wind will require
additional pipeline capacity to ensure the region’s fleet of natural-gas-fired
generators can ramp up to full output when the wind is not blowing and the sun
is not shining, especially in the middle of winter. If the region finally wants to retire the
remaining 8,300 MW of coal- and oil-fired generation, over 5,000 MW of
generation must be constructed, some of which must be fueled with natural gas,
and most of which should be located at or near the Hub to enhance grid
reliability and have the greatest price-suppression effect.