FCA – RI Future

June 27, 2016June 27, 2016

Why should Burrillville care about Invenergy’s bad financial decisions?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At the most recent Burrillville Town Council meeting, Town Councillor Kimberly Briquette Brown made some curious remarks about Invenergy’s obligations to ISO-NE, the organization responsible for managing the supply of electricity to Rhode Island and neighboring states. Invenergy is planning to build a $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the town and residents of Burrillville strongly oppose the plant.

“It’s my understanding,” said Brissette Brown, “from speaking to Mike McElroy and learning about this just as much as everybody else has been over the last few months, that once the ISO had granted the power capacity in February to Invenergy, that regardless of whether not they enter into a tax agreement with the town, if they do not go forward with building the power plant they’re going to be fined, substantially, it’s my understanding, and I could be wrong, millions of dollars. At the time… there was a concern about the financial ramifications of leaving the bill to people that thought that by voting no to a tax agreement that they’d be basically sending the power company packing.”

The gist of her remarks seems to be that Burrillville town attorney Michael McElroy convinced her that the town might be on the hook financially for the fines that Invenergy might suffer for not delivering on its obligations to ISO-NE. I couldn’t see how this was possible, so I asked Jerry Elmer, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), for his insight. The added emphasis is all mine:

By way of background, I explain in general that the results of FCA-10 show that the Invenergy plant is not needed, here.

And I am well aware of the fact that the mechanics of these FCAs can be complicated and difficult to understand; I provide some general background, here.

“In FCA-10, Invenergy bid both of its turbines, or 997 MW, into the ISO’s auction. However, in the actual auction, Invenergy cleared only one turbine, or 485 MW. Thus, Invenergy acquired a CSO of 485 MW. Invenergy agreed to provide electricity to the regional grid operator, ISO-NE, for a one-year period of time running from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020. This period of time is called Capacity Commitment Period 10 (CCP-10), and it corresponds to FCA-10. In return for agreeing to be available to the regional grid operator during that specified, future period, Invenergy will receive a stream of payments called capacity payments.

“In effect, Invenergy is selling a commodity, capacity, in return for a stream of money, called capacity payments. (And those links above provide some needed background that may help readers understand this.)

“In order to be allowed to participate in the ISO’s Forward Capacity Auction (FCA), Invenergy (or any other entity) had to first “qualify.” In order to qualify to participate in an auction, Invenergy (or any other entity) had to show that it had a realistic chance to actually build its proposed plant. (The ISO requires this, because the ISO is responsible for keeping our electricity grid reliable. ISO cannot keep the grid reliable if entities that acquire CSOs cannot actually build and operate power plants.) Invenergy (or any other entity) also has to put up a huge amount of “Financial Assurance” to even be allowed to participate in an FCA. FA is a kind of bond, a way of securing (guaranteeing) that Invenergy will be able to perform its obligation. FA would be forfeited if Invenergy (or any other entity) acquired a CSO (in an auction) but then did not actually have a plant built by the beginning of the CCP.

“So, now that Invenergy did acquire a CSO in FCA-10, is Invenergy irrevocably committed to building the proposed plant in Burrilville? The answer is unequivocally not.

“Could Invenergy abandon its proposed plant in Burrillville completely, and not lose the FA (bond) posted with ISO? The answer is unequivocally yes.

“To be sure, Invenergy could not just walk away from the plant. However, between today and June 1, 2019 (the beginning of CCP-10, when Invenergy’s CSO kicks in) the ISO will hold three separate Reconfiguration Auctions. One will occur about 2 years before June 1, 2019; one will occur about a year before June 1, 2019; and the last one will occur just before the start of CCP-10. At each of these Reconfiguration Auctions, buyers and sellers buy and sell CSOs to each other.

“Invenergy could – if it wanted to – sell out of its CSO in any one of those Reconfiguration Auctions. Of course, because the ISO is still responsible for keeping the New England electricity grid reliable, any entity that wanted to buy Invenergy’s 485-MW CSO would have to be qualified by the ISO to participate in the Reconfiguration Auction. The qualification process would be very similar to the qualification process for participating in an FCA – show that you either have a power plant already or could realistically build one in the remaining time allowed, and post FA.

“Invenergy could elect to sell out of its CSO in any of the next 3 ISO-run Reconfiguration Auctions for any one of a variety of reasons. For example, Invenergy could decide that the political climate in Rhode Island has turned against it, and that the plant might not be permitted by the Energy Facility Siting Board. (This could happen, say, if Governor Raimondo were persuaded to oppose the proposed plant as a result of overwhelming constituent pressure.) Or Invenergy could decide that the New England energy market is less lucrative than it thought it would be, and it is not worth building the plant. (In fact, the auction clearing price crashed from over $17 per kilowatt-month in FCA-9 to $7.03 per kilowatt month in FCA-10.) Or, Invenergy could sell out of its CSO for no other reason than that it thought it was profitable to do so. (Remember that whatever entity buys the CSO from Invenergy would be buying the right to a future stream of income. This is a valuable commodity, and it is entirely possible that Invenergy simply flips the CSO for a quick profit. Note that in that last sentence I mean “possible” as being completely within the ISO Market Rules; I am not suggesting that this is a likely course for Invenergy – only that it can be done.)

“In fact, Invenergy could sell out of its CSO in any one of the next three Reconfiguration Auctions for any reason it wanted to do so. The fact is that, having acquired a CSO on February 8 does not mean that the plant must inevitably be built, and does not mean that Invenergy is powerless to walk away without forfeiting the huge bond it posted with the ISO.

“In this scenario, the Town of Burrillville would not be on the hook for any of Invenergy’s CSO. In fact, the Town of Burrillville could almost certainly not be qualified by the ISO to buy Invenergy’s CSO. But, in any event, if Invenergy sold out of its CSO, the Town of Burrillville would have no liability for the CSO.”

So, in summary, the Town of Burrillville is in no way responsible for Invenergy’s bad decision to buy into a forward capacity energy market before being sure that they would be able to supply the energy required.

Invenergy made the promise, not Burrillville.

So I ask again, “Why should anyone in Burrillville care about bad decisions made by a Chicago based energy company? How is it possible that Burrillville should be liable for Invenergy’s bad business decisions?”

May 21, 2016May 21, 2016

CLF’s Jerry Elmer: Keable Bill is ‘excellent’ for power plant opponents

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The bill Representative Cale Keable introduced to the RI House that seeks to overhaul Rhode Island General Law 44-4-30 by giving the residents of Burrillville more power over whether or not Invenergy‘s proposed fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant gets built in their town has been reviewed by Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Senior Attorney Jerry Elmer, and his verdict is clear: “Despite its imperfections,” says Elmer, “the Keable Bill is an excellent bill that ought to be supported by enviros, because – for the two separate reasons outlined above — it makes it much less likely that the Invenergy plant will be built.”

You can read House Bill 8240 here.

Elmer’s analysis is worth reading in its entirety:

Main Point of the Bill – The main point of the bill appears on page 4. Under existing law (RIGL 44-4-30) the Burrillville Town Council has the power to set the property tax rate for Invenergy at any level it wants. Thus, under existing law, the Town Council could give Invenergy a sweetheart deal by charging one dollar per decade; or the Town Council could drive Invenergy out of Burrillville by charging a million dollars per nano-second. The Keable bill changes this by adding the requirement that, whatever the Town Council does, that arrangement must be approved by the voters of Burrillville in a voter referendum. This is a very, very good thing because it makes it much less likely that the plant will be built. In fact, this is true for two separate reasons:

First, many people have been worried that the Burrillville Town Council will make a secret sweetheart deal with Invenergy, and that the people of Burrillville will be cut out of the process. People have been very worried about this, because the people of Burrillville are overwhelmingly opposed to the Invenergy proposal, but the Town Council seems (much) more favorably inclined toward Invenergy. If passed, this law would make it impossible for the Town Council to cut the people of Burrillville out of the process. Any deal the Town Council makes with Invenergy would have to be approved by the voters; and the voters could vote down any tax treaty with Invenergy that does not ensure, with 100% certainty, that the plant is not built.

Second, even the presence of this law on the books creates uncertainty for Invenergy – at least until a tax treaty is negotiated and approved by public referendum. This uncertainty will probably make it more difficult (and maybe impossible) for Invenergy to obtain the necessary funding (loans) to start construction. After all, what lender would put up hundreds of millions of dollars knowing that the Town could tax Invenergy out of existence? Importantly, in a situation like this, delay (“mere delay”) can actually kill the project. As CLF argued at the [Energy Facilities Siting Board] EFSB, Invenergy made the election to obtain a Capacity Supply Obligation (CSO) in the ISO’s Forward Capacity Auction (FCA) on February 8, 2016, before Invenergy had the necessary state permits. That CSO begins on June 1, 2019, and it comes with huge financial penalties if Invenergy is not up and running by that time. If Invenergy is delayed in starting construction by even 12 months, Invenergy may be forced to sell out of its CSO (in an effort to avoid penalties) and abandon this project.

Note, importantly, that what I say in that last paragraph is true even if the EFSB grants Invenergy a permit! In other words, if passed, the Keable bill provides a separate and independent way of stopping Invenergy, a way that works even if CLF’s litigation against Invenergy in the EFSB fails.

In this sense, the Keable bill is clearly good for democracy. Up until now, many people have feared that the Town Council would secretly cut a sweetheart deal with Invenergy, despite overwhelming citizen opposition within the Town. If passed, the Keable bill would make that impossible.

Changing the Make-Up of the EFSB – The Keable bill would also change the make-up of the EFSB by expanding the EFSB from three to nine members. (Bill, page 1, lines 7 to 14) Currently two of the three members of the EFSB sit at the pleasure of the Governor (and this provision in the Keable Bill is probably intended to change that status quo). I am skeptical about how useful this provision would be, even leaving aside the unwieldiness of a nine-member EFSB. Note that two EFSB members now sit at the pleasure of the Governor. One of the proposed new members under the Keable Bill is the chairperson of the Commerce Corporation, who also sits at the pleasure of the Governor. Of the three “public members” to be added, the union representative will reliably support all new power plant construction, and the person “experienced in energy issues” may very well also reliably support new power plants. That would be five members of a nine-member EFSB that would reliably support new power plants. While well-intentioned, this provision is probably not a good way to stop the Invenergy proposal, or to constitute a better EFSB.

Considering a Town Council Resolution – The Keable bill contains this sentence (page 3, lines 18-19): “Prior to making a decision, the board [EFSB] shall take into consideration any town or city council resolution regarding the application.” This is toothless – for two reasons. First, “take into consideration” means “think about” but not necessarily respect or act upon. Second, as we know in this case, the Town Council is much more favorable toward Invenergy than the people of the Town.

Nevertheless, I want to be clear: Despite its imperfections, the Keable Bill is an excellent bill that ought to be supported by enviros, because – for the two separate reasons outlined above — it makes it much less likely that the Invenergy plant will be built.

What are the chances of passage? – Of course, the honest answer is, “I don’t know.” On the one hand, in order to have been introduced this late in the General Assembly session (three months after the filing deadline for new bills), the bill must have some support from leadership. On the other hand, if passed, this bill would go a long way to un-doing the whole purpose, the raison d’etre, of the state’s Energy Facility Siting Act that created the EFSB. That statute was designed to take the power to stop a proposal like Invenergy’s out of the hands of the local people (who could be motivated by base NIMBYism) and put it into the hands of the EFSB. This bill (not so much the change in EFSB membership, but the tax treaty referendum requirement) goes a long way to un-doing that purpose. Also, there is, as of yet, no Senate-side analogue of the Keable Bill in the House. Also, remember this: Governor Raimondo is a huge supporter of the Invenergy proposal going forward (because of the job-creation aspects). Even if the bill passes the General Assembly, Gov. Raimondo could still veto the bill – especially if her analysis of the bill’s real-world effects jibes with my own. My analysis is that, if passed, the bill would make it much less likely that the Invenergy plant will ever be built. If Gov. Raimondo agrees with me, she might veto the bill for that very reason.

Hearing on Thursday – Although not yet posted on the General Assembly website, Rep. Keable believes that his bill will be heard this Thursday in the House Environment Committee, at the Rise of the House (some time after 4 PM).

February 16, 2016May 3, 2016

Recent power auction proves Burrillville power plant unneeded

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Clear River Energy Center, a gas and oil fired energy plant proposed by Invenergy for Burrillville, Rhode Island is not needed, according to the results of ISO New England Forward Capacity Auction, the results of which were released last Monday. The results of the auction means that cost of energy in Rhode Island in 2019-2020 will be reduced and these lower costs have nothing to do with the energy offered by Invenergy.

[Note: Jerry Elmer had this to say in an email received after the story ran: “Energy and capacity are two different commodities. (The third component of electricity price is ‘ancillary services.’) The price of both energy and capacity are elements of the ultimate price of electricity that is paid by ratepayers (electricity customers) but energy and capacity are not the same thing. (That is, energy and capacity are not the same thing as each other; and energy and capacity prices are not the same thing as the price of electricity.) As components of the overall electricity market in New England, energy represents about 80% of the value (price) of electricity and capacity represents about 20%. (Ancillary services are a very, very small part of the price.)]

Forward Capacity Auctions (FCA) are somewhat complicated, and making sense of the ISO NE press release was a big lift, so I talked to Jerry Elmer, senior staff attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), to get my head around it.

“Invenergy is planning to build a 900 – 1000 MegaWatt (MW) plant,” said Elmer, “Only 485 MWs cleared in that auction and got a capacity supply obligation (CSO). So what that tells you immediately is that the plant is not needed in RI. If the plant were needed it would have gotten a CSO of 900 MW.”

Hold up. Let’s take this a little slower.

The way electrical prices are determined in Rhode Island is through a series of annual auctions. Most recently we completed FCA 10 (Forward Capacity Auction 10). Power companies bid to supply energy and ISO NE takes the best offers at the lowest price. The companies in the bidding are then obligated to supply that power during the time period specified and at the determined price. This is the capacity supply obligation (CSO).

In the most recent auction, FCA 10, Invenergy cleared only 485 MWs, about half of what their proposed 900-1000 MW plant could produce.

Under the rules of ISO NE, a certain amount of energy must be locally sourced in each zone. Here in Rhode Island, we are in the South Eastern New England (SENE) zone and the amount of locally sourced power required is 10,028 MW.

As Elmer explained the math, “The zone cleared the auction at 11,348 MW. So do a thought experiment: Invenergy got a CSO for 485 MW. Take 485 MW out of 11,348 MW and you’ve got 10,843 MW in the zone without Invenergy. You’ve got a surplus. You’ve 500 MW more than you need, without Invenergy.”

This is not what Invenergy expected when they presented their plans for the new plant. “If you look at Invenergy’s filing with the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB),” says Elmer, “they were talking about how desperately the plant is needed, it’s needed in RI to keep the lights on, and that the clearing price of capacity is going to be much higher in RI than in the rest of the ISO NE pool, what they call ‘rest of pool.’”

In the previous auction, Rhode Island did not fare so well. The reason for this is that between FCA 9 and FCA 10 the zones were restructured. “It used to be, up until this auction, there were two separate zones,” said Elmer, “There was SEMA RI (SouthEast Massachusetts and RI), NEMA Boston (SouthEast Massachusetts and Boston), and ‘Rest of Pool,’ but for FCA 10, the ISO collapsed what used to be the NEMA Boston zone with the SEMA RI zone and made one SouthEast New England (SENE) zone.

“The interesting thing here is that Invenergy has been planning this plant for a couple of years and it is true that in the two previous actions, FCA 8 and FCA 9 one year ago, the SEMA RI zone cleared much higher than rest of pool. Invenergy was right about that. So they start this plan for this plant, and they figure that they are going to absolutely clean up financially.

“This is an import constrained zone, clearing price is double what the rest of the pool is, we’re going to put 900 or 1000 MW into this very high priced zone, we are going to make a fortune. This was their thinking.

“Between FCA 9 and FCA 10, ISO NE collapsed the NEMA Boston and SEMA RI zone into a big zone, and now, instead of the zone that includes RI being very constrained with a shortage of power, we now have an excess of power in the zone.”

Drawing the lines of the various zones has nothing to do with politics, said Elmer, “It’s nothing you can vote on or put political pressure on. It’s physics! It’s where the transmission does or does not exist.”

Let’s look at this from Invenergy’s point of view for a minute: Invenergy “thought they were supposed to have 900 or 1000 MW cleared, at a very high price,” said Elmer, “instead only half the plant cleared, 485 MW. What cleared went at exactly the same price as rest of pool, no premium, zero. The rest of pool came out 25 percent lower than last year’s clearing price, and the zone here [in Rhode Island] cleared at about half the price of last years price for this zone.”

This is great news for Rhode Island, but for Invenergy, not so much. “Here’s the kicker,” said Elmer, “Invenergy got a CSO for 485 MW. That means they have got to build the plant. They are on the hook. They posted a huge bond with the ISO called Financial Assurance (FA) just to be allowed to play in the auction. So now Invenergy has the worst of all worlds.

“It only sold half its capacity to the ISO and at a much lower price than anticipated, but they still have to build the plant, or as an alternative, they could sell their CSO between now and June 1, 2019 in one of the annual or monthly reconfiguration auctions that the ISO runs, and get out of the business altogether and not even build the plant.

“They are now forced to build the plant that will be much less profitable and lucrative than they thought, or get out of it.”

Currently, the EFSB is holding hearings to determine whether or not the plant will be built. In their filing with the EFSB, Invenergy’s two major arguments in favor of the plant were, “The plant is needed for system reliability, to prevent blackouts, to keep the lights on” and “The plant will end up lowering the bill for ratepayers,” said Elmer.

“What the results of the auction shows is that both of Invenergy’s main arguments are just wrong. They are false,” said Elmer, “The plant is not needed for system reliability, it is not needed to keep the lights on and the net effect on the clearing price is either zero or very close to zero because the plant wasn’t needed.”

“CLF is presenting three witnesses to the EFSB,” said Elmer, “one witness for each of the three arguments that Invenergy is making in favor of the plant. We’ve got one witness on the system reliability issue: Is the plant needed to keep the lights on? The answer is no and this auction proves it.

“We have a separate witness on the money issue. Will building the plant save money for rate payers? This auction result says no, the answer is no.

“And then we’ve got another witness on the climate change/carbon emission issues whose testimony is going to be that if the plant is built, it will be impossible for the state to meet its carbon emission reduction goals.”

This information is “absolutely all relevant to the EFSB. In fact, Invenergy is the party before the EFSB that raised these issues! CLF is not raising these issues. We’re addressing these issues because Invenergy raised them. In legal terms, Invenergy opened the door on each of these issues, we’re just walking through it. We’re not raising these issues, Invenergy’s raising these issues. The reason we’ve got witnesses addressing these issues is because Invenergy raised them!”

The arguments in favor of the plant that we are hearing from our elected leaders, such as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, that Rhode Island suffers from an energy “choke point” and needs this plant for grid reliability, is simply not true any more, if it ever was. Given this new information, Senator Whitehouse should now feel very free to change his position on the proposed plant.

The low energy prices available now allows Rhode Island the luxury of planning a just transition to renewable energy sources and the time we need to concentrate on efforts to lower the amount of energy we need. Political leadership is needed to take advantage of this opportunity, and should not be squandered on an unnecessary fossil fuel plant that will harm Rhode Island’s environment and keep us addicted to fossil fuels for at least another half century.