The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Q&A

Why PJM Is ‘A Conveyor Belt Heading Into a Volcano’

Chatting with the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition’s Evan Vaughan.

•
The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This week’s conversation is with Evan Vaughan, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. The trade group is at the center of things right now, representing many of the 13 states in the PJM Interconnection region, including power-hungry Virginia. MAREC reached out to me so we could talk about how it sees various energy trends, from the rise of a new transmission build-out to the resilience of renewable energy in the Trump 2.0 era.

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

So where does your membership stand as the Inflation Reduction Act starts to fade into the distance?

The momentum we’ve seen coming out of the Inflation Reduction Act has largely kept pace up until this point. We’re entering into a little bit of unknown territory going forward given that tax credits are phasing out their primary eligibility by July, and we have some significant PJM milestones coming up, including the first post-transition cluster study happening with allocations due in April. In some ways, that first post-transition cluster is going to be really indicative of what direction we see the future energy mix shaping up like in PJM going forward. It’s an interesting time to have this conversation because we’re at such an inflection point.

How much is local siting conflict holding up development?

Local siting challenges are a big problem for getting new generation onto the grid, and it’s not just a wind and solar issue. It’s any generation source. It often gets couched as a wind and solar issue because that’s been the vast majority of the megawatts coming out of the PJM queue over the last five years or so. Even with that being said, there’s been local opposition with the Chesterfield gas plant in Virginia, too.

If you watch what PJM says about the state of their queue, they rightly point out that they’ve processed a number of queue applications, almost cleared out the backlog from their queue transition, and point out supply chain and siting issues for projects once they’ve exited the queue.

The PJM queue is a conveyor belt heading into a volcano. Projects, when they get to the end, they either encounter issues like local denials of their permits, or supply chain issues, or increasingly, interconnection cost challenges, in which case they fall into the volcano. Of those three issues, local siting is the one most readily apparent today.

I still think it’s a sleeper issue for politicians and the general public because there’s confusion over who holds the authority over our electricity generation future. Obviously PJM holds a lot of levers, and the states have a lot of power, and federal policy matters. But in the end, whether there’s enough generation to meet that demand comes down to thousands of local officials across PJM’s 13 states making enough “yes” decisions to make sure we have enough megawatts in place to keep the lights on.

Last week I wrote a feature on transmission development in the PJM region, the need for more wires on the grid, and conflicts over those projects. From your vantage point, how are these conflicts going to be resolved? Is it with local decision-making? Or does some of this interstate tension need to be fixed in other ways?

It’s not the local governments that are the bad guys here. It’s that they have a decision-making framework mismatch from what they care about – valid local issues – and the electricity supply-demand balance. If the lights go off or bills continue to rise and someone in the political realm loses their job, the average voter isn’t going to blame the local government. They’ll blame the state and broader government for these issues.

There’s a real problem with the storytelling aspect of transmission. I’m really optimistic as states come together around FERC’s order 1920, which is finally getting to the implementation stage, as the PJM region will be the first to file a complete planning and cost-allocation filing with the commission. The vision of 1920 is to create more state input with how lines are planned. That’ll hopefully provide some relief to the transmission controversies.

Do you think that whack-a-mole approach is why we’re seeing the level of tension we are on the ground over transmission?

Yes.

Well, that’s a simple answer.

I can elaborate. Essentially, the way transmission is planned is that reliability faults pop up on the system, PJM’s engineers identify faults, and then they identify the kinds of upgrades needed to address faults. It’s a backwards-looking process. It’s not tangible to an everyday person.

Starting from where we want to go in terms of state needs for energy generation and then asking people for input is a much better way to get public buy-in and reduce opposition.

What is the biggest issue that’s top of mind for MAREC?

I worry that for all the activity happening at the state level, the PJM level, and the federal level to try and address the supply-demand imbalance on the grid, it is mostly not adding up to a picture resulting in more generation coming online at the scale we need.

Many of the solutions proposed tend to miss some of the fundamental needs of businesses to draw them to invest in a new generation resource. Many of the solutions being worked on at the states and PJM level are trying to address an urgent near-term need, but what we see is all the changes are actually being disruptive in and of themselves.

What in this moment gives you hope? What makes you optimistic about the future?

I think we are still seeing a huge amount of enthusiasm from our member companies to invest in the PJM region, even with all the headwinds we have. It speaks to a fundamental value that our resources – wind, solar and storage – provide to the grid.

Yellow

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Q&A

Why the Wilderness Society Backs a Data Center Moratorium

Talking with Dan Hartinger, the land conservation group’s senior policy director.

•
The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Dan Hartinger, senior policy director for The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization in D.C. that this week called for a moratorium on data center development on public land. The public statement was relatively scant on details about the group’s stance, and a decade of reporting on policy in Washington has taught me that its positions are quite influential, especially in more traditional outdoor recreation and conservationist circles that are also often bipartisan. So I reached out and asked if someone could further explain the society’s position, and Dan obliged.

The following chat was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Data Center Outrage Catches Up to Renewables Outrage in Michigan

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

•
The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Central Michigan – I regret to inform you of this back-and-forth between candidates running for Congress and a would-be constituent because it’s a warning sign for the renewable energy sector (and sort of broke my brain).

  • This week brought the first and likely only debate between Rep. Tom Barrett and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who are locked in a tight contest over the Michigan 7th congressional district. As I’ve written, their race is a must-watch not only for control of the U.S. House but also the political fortunes of the data center sector.
  • The debate contained a remarkable exchange: Moderators played taped remarks from Paula Caltrider, identified as “a local resident” in the city of Mason to ask the candidates a question about data centers. Instead, she offered a comment. “You know, you can’t be a part of this no data center movement without renouncing the large solar farms and dangerous battery storage facilities that power these data centers.” (Quick TL;DR on Caltrider: She’s been quoted in national media coverage of the data center backlash and last year won a legal settlement after allegedly being fired for refusing a vaccine mandate.)
  • Barrett then ran with Caltrider’s baton. “I appreciate Paula linking these together, the stripping away of local control that took place in pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda in Lansing that took away control from communities” – a reference to the state’s primacy law that other Michigan Republican candidates have opposed.
  • Lawrence, whose support for a federal data center moratorium made him a national political test case, did not take the bait, nor did he criticize renewable energy. Instead, this part of the debate became a tit-for-tat about whether the sitting congressman once backed tax breaks for data centers. “He stuck his finger up into the wind, saw which way it was blowing, did a complete 180 on this issue,” Lawrence said. Then Barrett and Lawrence got into a confusing back-and-forth about whether the Inflation Reduction Act was a giveaway to data centers.
  • To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time the Data Center Trojan Horse has reared its ugly head on any kind of prominent debate stage, but it won’t be the last. For example: The Wisconsin gubernatorial debate is Oct. 21, and we’ve warned you about that one.

2. Doña Ana County, New Mexico – I suggest you pay closer attention to the federal permitting fight playing out over Oracle’s Project Jupiter.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

The Data Center Backlash Is Coming for Permitting Reform

The Senate’s compromise bill enters the chat at a moment when federal land and anti-pipeline advocates are already quite activated.

•
The Capitol and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The AI data center backlash is getting louder in D.C. ahead of the midterms – and it’s poised to collide head-on with the new permitting reform deal being negotiated in Congress.

This week, major environmental advocacy organizations are taking large public steps to lean in on the data center fight. The League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, I’ve been told, are imminently announcing a $250,000 ad buy in the Washington, D.C. market focused entirely on decrying fossil fuel-powered data centers and Trump administration policies to speed up their construction. The Wilderness Society, a prominent land conservation organization, announced it now supports a moratorium against data centers on “public lands” focused on the roughly half billion acres under the Interior Department’s stewardship. And Earthjustice on Thursday did a detailed report claiming that 80% of the data centers under development “bringing their own power” are going to rely on gas generation.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow