Recent advances in the complexity of microgrids currently being installed are stimulating a rush to increase the versatility and function of a technology platform originally conceived around the notion of hyper-reliability. This is why the Department of Defense (DOD) is so enamored by the prospects of microgrids, since they can protect mission critical functions during times of emergencies, including war, by creating islands of energy self-sufficiency.

In many ways, the ultimate application for DOD is forward-operating mobile microgrids that can be deployed during combat missions, especially those powered by modular solar photovoltaic (PV) units that could be carried in backpacks.

Even with mobile microgrids burning fossil fuels, fuel consumption could be cut in half by simply networking diesel gen-sets together instead of relying upon each generator to operate as stand-alone systems. Prototypes of such microgrids, being tested out in actual combat missions in Afghanistan, are currently validating such applications, which epitomize the simplicity of microgrid technology, albeit serving a very important service for troops in combat.

In a recent Pike Research forecast, it becomes clear that while renewable energy will be a major emphasis at DOD over the next two years, federal investments in microgrids outpace both smart meters and conservation.

On the other end of the spectrum are highly complex and revenue maximizing microgrids such as the one at University of California-San Diego, a 42 MW state-of-the-art facility that is actually up and running today. This microgrid features two of the most sophisticated microgrid offerings on the market today. The first comes from Power Analytics and represents a models-based management continually updated according to external fuel factors (such as levels of sunlight) and internal factors (shifts in demand). Layered on top of this sophisticated scheduling platform is Viridity Energy’s software, designed to extract the greatest value for the microgrid owner according to real-time market conditions.

At present, the Viridity Energy wholesale market optimization features have yet to go live, but they will shortly. (The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) does not yet offer a “plug and play” transmission market.)

Just within the last year or two, an important insight has emerged among microgrid advocates. Lessons learned from both military and campus-based microgrids has underscored the importance of integrating load shedding systems – such as demand response — with critical control of the generation assets. By incorporating dynamic and interrelated supply side generation with dynamic load shedding schemes, a more stable, robust, and efficient balance may be maintained to optimize energy surety and overall microgrid and macro-grid system stability.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) recent ruling mandating a demand response (DR) market by authorizing Independent System Operators (ISO) to compensate these distributed resources on par with generators is a game changer and will only accelerate the growing marriage of supply and demand resources within and outside of microgrids. This ruling could transform microgrids from threats to local distribution utilities into valuable resources for the larger grid. The FERC ruling’s primary impact is on energy service provision and less so on capacity and ancillary service offerings. Each ISO/RTO must file its demand response compensation tariffs later this month, but for all practical purposes, it will not be until next summer that this new revenue stream will be available to demand response providers. Just how significant is this new FERC initiative? According to Viridity Energy, payments would double in the PJM demand response market, which is already the most advanced market for demand response aggregation services.

Yet another twist to the microgrid vision revolves around forecasting. When a microgrid system level control is then coupled with more externally-focused information sources (weather patterns, commodity/energy prices, et cetera) available from enterprise level supervisory control systems (such as that provided by Power Analytics and Viridity Energy), the purported and well-hyped future functionality of microgrid systems is actually already here today.

The functionality, economics, and modularity of implementing such systems is possible because companies with decades of experience with similar competencies have re-purposed their field-proven tools to the unique needs of microgrid technologies as well as ownership models. A prime example is another firm that has been flying under the radar: Encorp LLC, which released its own “Microgrid System Controller,” this past April.

The company claims its new technology is the first microgrid system controller to connect onsite synchronous generators (typically diesel generators) with inverter-based solar PV, small wind, and advanced energy storage systems, and then monitor and control the resulting microgrid. Word has it that Encorp may not always win the initial contract, but is frequently called in after the fact to rescue projects that are not performing up to expectations. In essence, the Encorp system controller handles the nuts and bolts of the technology integration, interconnecting the combined generation portfolio of the microgrid to the larger utility grid or operating these devices while in island mode. Few other companies seem to be able to network legacy diesel gen-sets with more modern inverter-based generation and storage options as seamlessly as Encorp.

The new Encorp offering is based on the company’s well-regarded Gold Box™ and related software technology offerings. With over 1,000 MW of generation capacity under its control at 400 projects around the world, the company is betting big on the microgrid market. The new controller already has been successfully installed at a major international defense contractor site to ensure power reliability and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Among the projects Encorp is involved with is a small microgrid at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where the firm’s technology is creating the building blocks to help meet cyber-security goals. The company hopes to help realize new revenue streams for the DOD by helping to secure power supply for critical processes at Fort Belvoir, Virginia from a new Combined Heat and Power (CHP) installation. And at an undisclosed East Coast military site, Encorp is keeping its fingers crossed that it can work with Power Analytics to help a military base operate indefinitely in the case of a grid outage by integrating 1 MW of solar PV with advanced battery storage.

The growing sophistication of the microgrid market is truly impressive. We’ve come a long way since 2009. Yet, without the basic on-the-ground know-how and technology provided by firms such as Encorp, all of the functionality and optimization promised by the microgrid value proposition will go up in smoke.

Article by Peter Asmus, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• Pentagon Leads Development of Microgrids
• Southern California Edison Awards Contracts for Solar
• Developing Nations Look to Remote Microgrids for Energy Solutions
• The Promise (and Perils) of the Government Microgrid
• Will U.S. Utilities Develop Microgrid Models for the Developing World?

FERC may have recently put the kibosh on states implementing European-style Feed-in Tariffs, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. is left high and dry without ways to drive wholesale solar markets. We’re seeing daily action from utility PV programs that play by FERC’s rules.

Just today, Southern California Edison announced 60 MW worth of contracts under its new wholesale distributed generation (WDG) program. These winning bids will be installed on 31 rooftops and five ground-mounted sites across SCE’s service territory and deliver clean, reliable, wholesale power to the grid (as opposed to meeting on-site load).This is the first traunch of contracts for the utility’s 500 MW distributed solar program – half of which the utility will own and half of which must be contracted like this through independent producers.

As you may recall, SCE proposed the program as a mechanism for meeting its RPS requirements. The RPS may have set the end-goal of 20% by 2010 (with efforts still underway to increase to 33% by 2020), but it was the utility that opted to develop distributed solar to meet part of that requirement – a departure from the previously exclusive focus on large-scale projects in the 10 – 500 MW range. SCE’s move into WDG is significant for a few reasons:

Northern California’s PG&E has a similar program in the works, so expect to see more WDG on the way.

Vote Solar is a non-profit grassroots organization working to fight climate change and foster economic opportunity by bringing solar energy into the mainstream.

Related posts:

• First Solar Announces Major Solar Project for Mojave Desert
• SCE Makes Pricing for Solar More Favorable
• Is Solar PV Already Below Grid Parity?
• Who Says Solar is Too Expensive?
• 600MW of Solar in the Nevada Desert

Even as the irrepressible T. Boone Pickens had to scrap his “Pickens Plan” on Tuesday, in part due to a paucity of transmission capacity, last week brought another hurdle for the chances of building out the transmission infrastructure that Pickens and the country will need to bring more renewable power on-line. Why am I not surprised that we are not all rowing in the same direction here?

Earthjustice and a dozen other environmental groups filed suit against the feds on Tuesday, challenging the designation of the national interest corridors called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Readers who are really dialed-in to the latest in transmission litigation will remember that the Fourth Circuit already gave FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) a slap on the wrist this spring and limited the powers the feds could claim to site lines in the corridors in the face of local denials. This suit challenges the whole designation process and is another attempt to chip away at more federal control over siting transmission.

The cause of action is based on the violation of the administrative process that is required by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and other (most environmental protection) statutes. Earthjustice and the co-plaintiffs claim that had the feds undertaken these notice and comment and other requirements, they would have recognized that the corridors declared would only serve to facilitate coal and other fossil-fueled power sources to proliferate in the West. As such, the lines would not have been environmentally defensible.

Earthjustice’s attorney says that they don’t necessarily see the suit as a legal action against the new Obama administration, but instead hope it is taken as an “invitation” to sit down and discuss the transmission issues. Politically, I have to question the strategy since there is plenty of opportunity for discourse on these issues right now as it is with the Senate taking up the climate change bill.

Also, I return to what I believe to be the fundamental question right now in climate change politics: how much are conservationists willing to surrender in local impact in exchange for real action on global climate change? A big picture approach is essential, which is why I think that this Earthjustice suit is both bad environmental advocacy and a bad political miscalculation.

For the legal geeks and political wonks out there, cruise on over and check my post at EnergyWorks for all the gory details on where I think this suit fits within the emerging legal context and how the Democratic politics plays out.

Related posts:

• Pickens to Obama: think big
• T. Boone Pickens – greedy capitalist or caring environmentalist?
• Green Coalition Files Lawsuit Over U.S. Arctic Drilling Approval
• China Trumps T. Boone Pickens’ Wind Power Project With 20 Gigawatt Farm
• Native Americans Sue Solar Project Over Endangered Lizard Habitat

Ken Salazar's solar array and cowboy hat combo should be more common under the plan announced yesterday for the Southwest

Yesterday’s big announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar heralded what may be a new era for solar power, as thousands of acres of federal land in six Southwestern states were set aside to become a special federal solar energy zone designed to facilitate siting, construction and deployment of as much as 70,000 MW of new solar capacity.

Today, it is wind’s turn in the sun. The front page of the Boston Globe and local broadcast reports are abuzz with the news that Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has released a new plan to re-zone state coastal waters to better balance the need for marine ecological protections with the hope that Massachusetts can harvest more of its offshore wind as useful electricity.

In the absence of all of the plan’s details (a full presser was scheduled for the afternoon of July 1 at the New England Aquarium in Boston), the media has already shifted to score-keeping. There is at least one clear loser, as the plan deals a death blow to a particular Buzzards Bay proposal for 300 MW of offshore wind. The wind farm would sit in what is now a restricted area.

The plan does set aside two specific areas for large-scale wind, and Jim O’Sullivan of the State House News Service quotes Ian Bowles, the state’s energy secretary, as telling reporters that “the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] will want to put those areas out to bid and they would be, relatively speaking, on the fast track for development.” (sorry, SHNS is a subscription site – no link). Bowles allowed that the proponents of the Buzzards Bay project could bid to shift their 90+ turbines to one of the newly-designated areas, but added that he had no idea whether they intended to do so.

Bowles’ “fast-tracking” comment is direct, but not surprising. His own March Op-Ed in the NYT made reference to the administration’s perception of major offshore wind potential; and, those comments were strengthened considerably by the testimony Paul Hibbard, a state regulatory commissioner, gave before Congress in mid-June.

All the international investment, Washington clout and technological innovation in the world is for naught in a climate where a neighbor and ten friends can still get together and tie a project into a Gordian knot of appeals and reviews.

Until the full rule-making process is complete on both of these new policies, it is unclear what the real impact on siting will be. But, it seems obvious that neither policy will address all of the potential delays in getting turbines spinning. For example, the Massachusetts plan still grants local towns and regional planning agencies the authority to approve smaller wind projects in state coastal waters.

Taken together, yesterday’s federal announcement of a new plan for Southwestern solar zones and the Massachusetts offshore wind farm rezoning plan, demonstrate some interesting trends: first, a shift that brings policy more in line with rhetoric and second, a clear bias for executive action as against legislative enactment.

The two announcements are tangible steps toward aligning policy with the increasing rhetoric about the desire for greater renewable deployment. The major problem remains siting. Even in a fantasy scenario where there is no additional public opposition (which does NOT happen), the environmental and administrative processes at the local, regional, state and federal level are cumbersome.

Streamlined siting of generation assets is less meaningful without equivalent relief for building the transmission interconnections that are required to get wind off the high seas and solar rays out of the desert, and deliver usable energy to load centers.

The siting problem is a drag on development even as aggressive renewable portfolio standards have sent utilities out on the market for new renewable capacity (in spite of a year where they saw overall demand drop). It remains true even as huge sums of public money have been made available to subsidize renewable power and to spur development of new generation capacity.

Both of these announcements should – ostensibly – make siting, permitting and constructing a project easier. Both are still subject to public comment periods and possible amendment, but however the details emerge, it seems clear that what we will be left with is a more favorable climate for developers.

Both plans face at least one big additional question: even if they allow for streamlined siting of the generation asset, do they offer equivalent relief for building the transmission interconnections that will be required to get the wind off the high seas and the sun’s rays out of the desert, and deliver usable energy to load centers? Just ask Cape Wind, who was able to site their entire proposed farm in federal waters, whether relief from zoning and local/state court appeals for transmission infrastructure is needed.

The second trend is perhaps a little more wonkish and nuanced, but what does this spate of executive action mean for the future of energy infrastructure siting? Based on the blood bath that emerged in the House trying to get Waxman-Markey through, the measured bill that emerged, and the dim hopes of getting even that kind of bill through the Senate, it seems clear that if we are going to see swift, aggressive action on game-changing energy policy matters, it is likely to come from the executive corner of the government. While we can’t say how that trend might be greeted by the legislative bodies off in the other corner, we do have some indication of how the third member of the troika – the courts – will respond.

Swift, aggressive action on game-changing energy policy matters is likely to come from the executive corner of the government.

This spring, the Fourth Circuit rejected FERC’s attempts to grab a greater share of power under Federal Power Act amendments that were a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Piedmont decision interpreted FERC’s backstop authority as a sort of riding crop that allowed the executive agency to help spur movement in state siting decisions and prevent undue or bad faith delay. The court expressly rejected FERC’s claim that the EPAct 2005 amendments allowed it to overturn the decisions of state siting agencies.

We may soon have a similar indication of the expansiveness of executive agency authority in Massachusetts. After receiving a consolidated “super-permit” from the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, Cape Wind faces a new SJC appeal that is sure to allege that local zoning approvals should not have been preempted. Cape Wind already prevailed in a 2006 SJC decision that focused more on the question of administrative authority and practice than on the substantive issues around siting.

It will be interesting to see if the Massachusetts court follows the 4th Circuit in some sense by limiting executive authority over energy infrastructure. Either way, the fact remains that project developers will remain subject to a full panoply of potential legal remedies that opponents can use to delay construction. These policies themselves – in whatever form they ultimately take – will inevitably be tested and interpreted by the courts.

In spite of the new policies, a fundamental conflict in renewable energy generation siting remains: the resources are most often not collocated with load. In other words, the locals who are experiencing the hardships presented by the development are probably not the ones who need the increased capacity. Even if a developer can site a project in one of the Commonwealth’s new zones (say on the beaches south of Boston headed toward Cape Cod), they still face the fundamental question from locals: why should I allow 10 turbines on my beach so that you can generate more power for skyscrapers downtown? And that is to say nothing of the permits required to construct transmission lines, transformation facilities and other ancillary infrastructure needs.

It is a positive sign for developers when the leaders of our nation and our states decide to put some of their political capital where their rhetoric has been. But, none of these policies are a panacea. Developers need to focus on the whole project picture, but they must keep a wary eye at ground level. All the international investment, Washington clout and technological innovation in the world is for naught in a climate where a neighbor and ten friends can still get together and tie a project into a Gordian knot of appeals and reviews.

Related posts:

• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• Obama Rolls Out New Fuel Standards for Trucks
• EVs as Popular as iPhones?
• Pres. Obama Seeking 2012 Budget Increase For Green Energy
• Waxman-Markey’s Chevron Redux?

With specific dollar allocations published for Conservation Block Grants, $780 million released for energy efficiency and Weatherization (more to come), and grant announcements worth $2.4 billion for next generation electric vehicles issued, the first wave of DOE stimulus has come and gone.

In its wake, state, city, and county energy offices, agencies, commissions and departments are scrambling to make sense of how to funnel additional money into their respective jurisdictions.  This includes readying Strategic Energy Plans for SEP program approval and drafting State Comprehensive Applications for the remaining Weatherization funds, as well as exploring potential partnerships and programs to win highly competitive grants for additional projects.

But the biggest unclaimed prize (which is conspicuously devoid of specific application details from DOE to date): an ARRA provision worth $4.5 billion for “Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.”  This so-called “Smart Grid Demonstration Provision” is one of the larger infrastructure investments under ARRA — intended to upgrade the antiquated grid and create jobs in the process (read this for a detailed KEMA analysis published by GridWise on smart grid job creation).  Unlike Weatherization, SEP, or Conservation Block Grants, Smart Grid funds will not be divided among the various states or trickle down through predetermined formulas.  Rather, ARRA states:

“(A) IN GENERAL — In carrying out the initiative, the Secretary shall provide financial support to smart grid demonstration projects in urban, suburban, tribal, and rural areas, including areas where electric system assets are controlled by nonprofit entities and areas where electric system assets are controlled by investor-owned utilities.”  [SEC. 405. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE XIII OF THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007}.

That leaves open…the entire United States and there is little indication of how few or many “demonstration projects” will ultimately be funded.  Whether the DOE throws money at established, so-called “Smart Grid Hubs” (see SmartGridCity in Boulder, CO and The Pecan Street Project in Austin, TX), or rather smaller programs just getting off the ground is anyone’s guess.  Potential recipients include public and investor-owned utilities, and nonprofit entities controlling electric system assets.  Private companies with smart grid technologies can get a piece of the action through partnerships with utilities.

What we do know is that ARRA requires the Secretary of Energy to establish procedures for applications to obtain grants within 60 days after the enactment of ARRA (which is approximately the middle of April) “by means of a notice of intent and subsequent solicitation of grant proposals.”

What types of projects will ultimately be funded?

ARRA includes a short laundry list of proposed programs that qualify as “activities to modernize the electric grid,” including demand responsive equipment development, enhancing security and reliability of the energy infrastructure, energy storage research, development, demonstration and deployment, and facilitating recovery from disruptions to the energy supply.

In keeping with these goals, FERC released a proposed policy and action plan statement on March 19 setting forth interim guidelines to encourage the development and implementation of Smart Grid technology and proposing reliability and interoperability standards.  FERC proposes to make cyber security and grid reliability top priorities for smart grids.  Read here for the full statement from FERC.

FERC is also partnering with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) as co-chairs of the NARUC/FERC Smart Grid Collaborative.  The Collaborative has released a list of criteria for the DOE to consider when it starts providing grant and other funding for Smart Grid projects under ARRA.

How can CleanTechies get involved?

CleanTechies interested in Smart Grid employment opportunities should not wait for the official DOE guidelines release to get in on the action.  The Smart Grid: An Introduction, published by DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, offers an accessible overview of the opportunities associated with Smart Grid implementation.  It also includes a discussion of the following five fundamental technologies, heralded as key drivers of the Smart Grid:

1. Integrated communications, connecting components to open architecture for real-time information and control, allowing every part of the grid to both ‘talk’ and ‘listen’
2. Sensing and measurement technologies, to support faster and more accurate response such as remote monitoring, time-of-use pricing and demand-side management
3. Advanced components, to apply the latest research in superconductivity, storage, power electronics and diagnostics
4. Advanced control methods, to monitor essential components, enabling rapid diagnosis and precise solutions appropriate to any event
5. Improved interfaces and decision support, to amplify human decision-making, transforming grid operators and managers quite literally into visionaries when it come to seeing into their systems

Keep an eye on the DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for updates about Smart Grid funding.

Related posts:

• Stimulus Update: Biofuel Funds Released
• Stimulus Update: Smart Grid Funding Guidelines Released
• To Tax or Not to Tax Smart Grid Investment Grants?
• US Treasury Releases ARRA Guidelines on Grants in Lieu of Tax Credits
• U.S. Unveils Programs to Modernize Electric Grid System