Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Zitelman, Kiera.
This report seeks to provide basic information about CNG, thus preparing PUCs to make sound decisions regarding CNG offerings impacting utility customers. It cites examples from a growing body of state regulatory decisions on utility CNG proposals and aims to help PUCs build familiarity with CNG offerings to assist with their future decision-making.
In fall 2019, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) initiated a joint Microgrids State Working Group (MSWG), funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity (OE). The MSWG aims to bring together NARUC and NASEO members to explore the capabilities, costs, and benefits of microgrids; discuss barriers to microgrid development; and develop strategies to plan, finance, and deploy microgrids to improve resilience. This report, Clean Energy Microgrids: Considerations for State Energy Offices and Public Utility Commissions to Increase Resilience, Reduce Emissions, and Improve Affordability, focuses specifically on how clean energy microgrids can achieve both resilience and clean energy benefits. The paper provides an overview of the challenges faced by clean energy microgrids, outlines benefits that clean energy microgrids can provide, and details economic and cost considerations for the development of clean energy microgrid projects. Outlined in the paper are the necessary technological components of a clean energy microgrid, including generation, storage, energy efficiency measures, and smart controls. Current technologies are highlighted, along with potential configurations of clean technologies that are approaching cost competitiveness with commercially available options. The paper concludes with both policy and regulatory considerations for State Energy Offices and Public Utility Commissions to enhance the development and deployment of clean energy microgrids. Although it touches on the clean energy microgrids’ role in integrating distributed energy resources (DERs) into the larger grid, this is not the focus of this paper.
States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.
The United States depends on the delivery of reliable, affordable, clean, and safe electricity. Electric utilities invest billions of dollars each year in generation, transmission, and distribution assets to meet this need. However, experiences with recent natural disasters of increasing frequency and duration demonstrate the shortcomings of this approach in the face of modern threats. Further, as customers rely on electricity for a broader range of important needs, such as transportation, as well as critical life-saving services and mission critical facilities such as water treatment, medical care, shelters, telecommunications, and more, the need to minimize the likelihood and impacts of outages grows. Against this backdrop, resilience has emerged as a key consideration to guide electricity spending, whether from utilities, customers, or taxpayers. Although reliability has been defined and measured for decades with broadly accepted metrics that measure how many customers lose power and at what frequency and duration, resilience considers the electricity system’s response to a disruption and its subsequent impacts on customers. Developing tools and methods to accurately assess the costs and benefits of resilience investments is a critical step toward the goal of mitigating the impacts of outages on customers and society. Today, electric system resilience is largely treated as an externality due to challenges estimating the costs of long-duration outages, impacts of outages on society, and increasing reliance on electricity for a growing set of interdependent services. These interdependencies include the water, wastewater, telecommunications, natural gas, and health sectors. Without knowing how much a given resilience investment will benefit customers or society more broadly, investors, policymakers, and regulators are less likely to make or approve such investments, and less able to prioritize those investments. State Energy Offices and public utility commissions (PUCs) lead the development of state-level energy policy and utility regulation, respectively, and each has interests in encouraging appropriate public and private investments in resilience. To this end, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity (OE), formed a joint Microgrids State Working Group to explore the costs and benefits of microgrids, barriers to broader deployment of microgrids to meet resilience and other objectives, and policy and regulatory strategies to optimize investments in resilience, including but not limited to microgrids. Although no universally accepted valuation tool for resilience exists, National Laboratories, utilities, researchers, and state and federal agencies have collaborated to develop, apply, and improve a number of approaches to quantify resilience, several of which are still in progress at the time this report is published. This report seeks to share these important advances by discussing current definitions of resilience (Section 1), how microgrids are defined and used to meet resilience objectives (Section 2), new approaches to valuing resilience (Section 3), steps State Energy Offices and PUCs have taken to further resilience valuation efforts (Section 4), and finally, considerations and suggested next steps for State Energy Offices and PUCs (Section 5). Relevant examples of specific microgrid projects and resilience valuation efforts are included throughout the report. While this report is written specifically for NASEO and NARUC members, it may be useful for utilities, local governments, and individual customers interested in improving the way public and private dollars are spent to achieve resilience outcomes.
The ongoing trend of coal retirements has disproportionately affected the socioeconomic health of communities where power plants are located. For many public utility commissions, these impacts have led to important questions around the scope of PUCs’ statutory authority to analyze, consider and mitigate losses to host communities within their role as utility regulators. Due largely to variations in state legislative charges, commissions have taken different approaches to articulating what lies within the public interest.This report examines the authority of PUCs across the country to consider non-energy economic impacts beyond direct ratepayer effects, and summarizes approaches that PUCs, utilities and other stakeholders have used to mitigate the economic fallout of coal retirements, specifically.
In fall 2019, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) initiated a joint Microgrids State Working Group (MSWG), funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity (OE). The MSWG aimed to bring together NARUC and NASEO members to explore the capabilities, costs, and benefits of microgrids; discuss barriers to microgrid development; and develop strategies to plan, finance, and deploy microgrids to improve resilience. Based on member input, the MSWG developed two companion briefing papers to answer key questions about microgrids: (1) User Objectives and Design Approaches for Microgrids: Options for Delivering Reliability and Resilience, Clean Energy, Energy Savings, and Other Priorities and (2) Private Sector, State, and Federal Funding and Financing Options to Enable Resilient, Affordable, and Clean Microgrids. Read together, these resources provide readers with an understanding of both why and how customers—whether an investor-owned, cooperative, or municipal utility; federal, state, or local government entity; individual or group of residential, commercial, and/or industrial customers; or other organization—select, design, and pay for microgrid projects.
Modern natural gas utilities face numerous challenges and competing priorities from various stakeholders. Policymakers, customers, and advocacy groups want to see gas utilities improve performance on safety, reliability, resilience, affordability, and environmental stewardship. State utility regulators — public utility commissions — are responsible for overseeing utility performance, ensuring that ratepayer funds are being spent in the public interest, and aligning utility goals with public goals. The use of new technologies is critical to enabling cost-effective performance on these attributes. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a widely used term among utilities and regulators, but the term means different things to different stakeholders, and it is often used to describe data analytics approaches that fall short of the formal definition of AI, which is: “…the ability of a machine to receive inputs and produce a behavior or reaction similar to that of an intelligent human being.” AI (and related tools, techniques, and technologies) can help utilities solve current and emerging challenges. By combining customer and system data with analytical tools and technologies, AI can augment human decision-makers by assisting in identifying problems and events before they occur, enabling resources to be more efficiently directed across utility infrastructure. The intended primary audience for this primer is state regulators, although utilities and other stakeholders might also find it useful and relevant to improve their awareness of AI. The objectives of this primer are to: (a) offer a set of broadly applicable definitions for AI and related terms, allowing regulators, utilities, and other stakeholders to speak the same language; (b) discuss how AI is currently being implemented in the gas utility sector; and (c) understand the challenges affecting AI solutions and how tools might be implemented in the future. This primer fits within NARUC’s goals of providing impartial information to improve the ability of public utility commissions to regulate in the public interest. As such, this primer does not seek to recommend AI over any other investment, nor does it endorse any particular vendor, product, or approach. It does seek to prepare state regulators to oversee AI investments by sharing information about the current landscape of commercially available tools. To these ends, the primer is organized as follows: Section I discusses the current environment in which natural gas utilities operate and how AI, when thoughtfully designed and implemented, can enable utilities to achieve performance goals; Section II offers definitions of AI and related terms within the data analytics discipline; Section III provides three current opportunities for which AI can offer solutions: replacing aging gas distribution infrastructure, preventing excavator damage to gas distribution infrastructure, and improving energy efficiency programs. This section discusses each problem statement in detail. Second, Section III includes a discussion of how costs and benefits of investments to solve each problem are measured. And third, this section offers real-world examples of utility implementation of AI solutions; Section IV discusses challenges with implementing AI, both from the perspective of utilities and regulators; Section V suggests areas in which AI could feasibly be implemented in the near future; Finally, Section VI offers concluding thoughts and areas for further research.
Severe weather, cyber-attacks, geomagnetic disturbances, and other hazards and threats have caused or have the potential to cause substantial levels of damage to electricity infrastructure and the global economy. Growth in distributed energy resources (DERs) and increasing attention to the resilience of the electric grid - its ability to "anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover" from disruptions, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, 2018) - have created an opportunity for energy stakeholders to develop and deploy "resilient DERs," resources in the distribution grid that improve the ability of a customer, critical facility, and/or the distribution system in general to anticipate, absorb, adapt to, and/or rapidly recover from disruptions. This paper explores how existing state regulations intersect with resilience and highlights opportunities where state regulators can employ DERs to advance resilience.
This resource has two complementary parts: (1) A list of questions that offers an initial starting point for state public utility commissions (commissions) to frame how they review proposed utility investments and considerations that could offer resilience benefits; (2) A list of relevant resources to improve a regulator's ability to oversee resilience investments and obtain the best possible solutions for customers. The list of resources includes a synopsis of relevant topics covered in each resource. This document is not intended to offer a complete picture of resilience literature, but instead suggests strategies for state regulators to convene conversations and make decisions to achieve better resilience outcomes for customers. It is meant to serve as a starting point for commissions to understand and incorporate resilience into regulatory processes. The list of questions and resources will not be perfectly suited to the particular needs of each commission. As the resilience conversation advances, regulators will need to take advantage of available resources to build their capacity to assess resilience risks, compare investment options, and evaluate performance.