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.
