The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

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

Q&A

A Powerful New Transmission Coalition Arises in the Northeast

A conversation with Jason Marshall of Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

The May 1 Q and A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is about transmission. It may have been lost in the shuffle but earlier this week, the state of Massachusetts led a coalition of Northeast states in releasing a joint strategic action plan on transmission planning. We haven’t covered transmission fights too much yet in The Fight (that’ll change soon, stay tuned). So I wanted to learn more about how and why this plan came together, especially given how crucial wires will be to connecting renewables to the grid there. So I got on the horn with Jason Marshall, deputy secretary and special counsel for federal and regional energy affairs in Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. We wound up chatting about how significant this plan is – and a little bit about folk music too.

The following transcript is a slightly abridged version for clarity.

To start – why does this strategic action plan exist?

The strategic action plan has actually been about two years in the making and it’s something that the Healy-Driscoll administration has actually led from our office, knowing there’s a gap in transmission planning.

How transmission planning works today is it focuses on facilities developed within a specific planning region but Massachusetts – and all states – don’t exist as energy islands and we should be collaborating more closely across all regions. We saw a gap in identifying needs in the system, where we were only looking at needs within our singular region, and not looking at whether there are more cost effective ways to solve a reliability issue by enhancing ties with neighbors. That was basically it. There’s not a routine process that exists right now to do interregional planning.

Help me understand how transmission planning helps mitigate conflicts in developing transmission?

Planning in general helps mitigate conflict. You’re being proactive and have transparent procedures developed and put in place for how the process works.

This goes back to what the gap is. Because we don’t have formalized rules to do transmission planning, to the extent there are interregional transmission lines that our state develops, it’s happening on an ad hoc basis. It’s a project-by-project type of a process.

What are the conflicts most crucial to manage in transmission siting?

So taking a step back, this strategic action plan is not focused on siting and permitting. Massachusetts passed a landmark law last year that significantly reformed the siting and permitting process in [the state]. But that being said, this goes back to one of your earlier questions: if you have formalized procedures in place, in a set of rules filed with regulators, that’s a way to make sure there’s an efficient process with transparency at the earliest possible stage.

Walk me through how the plan does that.

There’s several components. In our view, the plan is really anchored by a request for information we hope to issue as early as this summer inviting project developers to submit design concepts to this group of states involved in the effort. I don’t think anything like that has ever been done before. The other part of that [request] is work the states plan to do, inviting stakeholders and market participants, to participate in a discussion on cost allocation and how the states may divide the costs of any interregional project that might come to fruition through this process. These are two really important steps that create formality around this.

Briefly, on that point, and I think this is important: typically the way transmission planning is done, you come up with a set of rules and then you implement those rules. But because those rules don’t exist, this group of states is collaborative and doing this in reverse, using potential real projects as a catalyst to explore broader reforms.

The last question is just a broader one about transmission and the power mix. A pretty crucial aspect of Massachusetts’ expected renewable energy portfolio is supposed to be offshore wind. We’re dealing with hurdles in that space right now. How does that impact your transmission planning and the power grid?

If you look through the plan, what will come across is that the effort is broader than any one specific resource. That’s purposeful. This group of states recognizes the many benefits that transmission provides, from increasing access to markets for lower price energy to reliability and resiliency. And it can include connecting new resources, and it’s not specific to any resource type.

That being said, like all resources, offshore wind could potentially be enabled through the work we’re doing. A number of resources could potentially be facilitated through this work. One of the components of the plan is trying to standardize equipment design used for transmission which is a real technical issue but it has real consequences in terms of facilitating a network transmission grid, making sure the equipment is interoperable and we can talk to each other.

To conclude, a fun question: what was the last song you listened to?

The last song? It was “Automatic” by The Lumineers. I love the new album, they’re coming to Fenway Park in July and I’m taking my daughter to the show.

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
Spotlight

The Real vs. Imagined Problems with Data Centers’ Water Use

How much water is too much?

Water, a data center, and a protester.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The data center water issues are real – but they aren’t what you think.

Too often, I hear people say the number one reason they’re against data center development is water use. Heatmap’s data shows water consumption is historically the reason cited most often by activists when opposing projects. This complaint, they often say, is rooted in the fear that this nascent buildout of AI infrastructure will simply draw so much H2O it will leave little liquid left for the rest of us.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Texas Is the Eye of the Bipartisan Data Center Hurricane

And more of this week’s biggest news around project fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Matagorda County, Texas – The bipartisan data center backlash is now so powerful that a top Republican Texas state official is doing an event with the Democrat vying to replace him.

  • On Thursday afternoon, outgoing Republican agriculture commissioner Sid Miller and Democratic candidate Clayton Tucker are marqueeing a forum hosted by Matagorda County Against Data Centers, an opposition group that appears to also monitor solar and battery storage for potential opposition, too. Miller is leaving his post at the end of the year after being defeated in a GOP primary by Nate Sheets, who was supported by Gov. Greg Abbott.
  • This bipartisan forum will take place after Abbott himself called for new laws and regulations on data centers in a letter to Texas Public Utility Commission Chair Thomas Gleeson and ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas. Abbott said he’d push to require data centers to pay costs for electric infrastructure and use “water-efficient technologies such as closed-loop cooling systems.” Also on the to-do list? Mandatory property setbacks and noise reduction.
  • It’s becoming clear the frustrations against AI infrastructure and associated energy projects are starting to boil without a vent. The first county to issue a data center moratorium in Texas has withdrawn the effort after facing a $100 million lawsuit from a developer, and other counties are delaying future moratoria on fears of legal risks. Where will all of this frustration go without the option to pause development locally?
  • We’re starting to see Texas legislators seek to channel this anger. Last week, Rep. Veronica Escobar – a Democrat who represents the dry, data center-anxious city of El Paso – offered an amendment in a House committee to block funding for the EPA’s new data center construction rules. The amendment failed but I’d hardly be surprised to see this sort of rider gain traction if Democrats retake the lower chamber, especially if data centers are a major election issue.

2. Albany County, New York – As we await Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision on whether to enact the nation’s first statewide moratorium on data centers, I wanted to bring up some pretty crucial facts about the situation in the Empire State.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

One Investor’s Climate ‘Realism’ In the Data Center Era

A conversation with Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is one of my favorites so far – Craig Lawrence of Energy Transition Ventures. Lawrence has been around the block and back again when it comes to the cleantech investment landscape. So I took note when he got into a brief back-and-forth with an activist fighting data centers in Indiana who claimed there were “so many clean energy people who no longer care about climate change” because they “now support fossil fuel data centers if some nominal amount is met with clean energy.”

Lawrence replied, “Some of us are simply realists.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow