This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Retooling Regulation: A Closer Look at Integrating Energy and Environmental Policy

Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)'s picture

The Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)® is an independent, non-partisan, non-governmental organization dedicated to accelerating the transition to a clean, reliable, and efficient energy future....

  • Member since 2018
  • 66 items added with 31,917 views
  • Nov 4, 2016 1:00 pm GMT

Your access to Member Features is limited.

Part one of this series described why it is increasingly necessary to integrate energy and environmental planning and introduced one way to do so, the E-Merge approach. Improvements in public health science, detection technologies, and modeling over the last 25 years require parallel improvements in our decades-old regulatory approach for air quality. Likewise, the rapidly transforming electric sector presents equally formidable challenges for energy regulators. And energy efficiency and renewable energy should be considered alongside other measures to improve air quality in any evaluation, due to their breadth and cost-effectiveness.

Many jurisdictions are also considering vehicle electrification programs or policies and the electrification of space and water heating in buildings. Environmentally beneficial electrification offers significant opportunities to reduce emissions, improve renewable energy integration, and provide other services to the electric grid. These opportunities suggest that now is the time to convene E-Merge discussions involving all associated disciplines: air quality, energy, transportation, and buildings to ensure coordinated policy development, reveal potential synergies or constraints, and secure maximum cost savings and co-benefits.

E-Merge Combining the Strengths of Traditional State Air Planning and State Energy Planning
In this post, we discuss the conceptual steps of the E-Merge process. E-Merge seeks to combine the best of integrated resource plans (IRPs) and state implementation plans (SIPs) and to overcome their deficiencies (like inattention to externalities, inadequate appreciation of costs, and serial pollutant-by-pollutant rather than multi-pollutant methods). E-Merge endeavors to address such key questions as:
  • What negative health impacts should be reduced or eliminated, and over what time period?
  • How many tons of pollutants would need to be removed from the airshed to do so, and by when?
  • How could compliance costs be optimized, while satisfying electric reliability and environmental requirements?
  • Would this kind of process also meet federal SIP requirements?

Every airshed has a finite carrying capacity; only a limited amount of pollution can be emitted into it before air quality standards will be exceeded. Carrying capacity also varies from year-to-year based on climate and weather trends, changing levels of economic activity, etc. It can also differ from airshed to airshed, influenced by:

  • Which sectors emit which pollutants in what quantities and when;
  • Population characteristics and local geographic features (e.g., latitude, terrain, waterbodies, etc.);
  • Diurnal weather patterns; and
  • How much pollution is transported into the airshed from other areas and when.

E-Merge Conceptual Process Steps

The first step of the E-Merge process is to establish a goal regarding public health and welfare outcomes. For some jurisdictions, the goal might be as simple as “meet all existing federal requirements.” Other jurisdictions may want to go beyond existing mandates to reduce the risk of encountering future air quality non-attainment problems and the economic sanctions they impose.

The next few steps of an E-Merge process are familiar to air regulators because they echo ones already taken in preparing SIPs.

1. Determine current ambient air quality status using the most recent emissions inventory and monitoring data to identify the airshed’s “design values” for criteria pollutants. Design values reflect whether an area is in attainment with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and serve as baselines against which the results of emission reduction measures can be assessed. The calculation of design values is specified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and varies for each pollutant.

2. Compare the existing design value for each pollutant that is needed to reach attainment with current (and, if desired, expected future) NAAQS.

3. Conduct air quality modeling to determine the number of tons of each pollutant that must be removed from the airshed to reach current (and/or expected future) NAAQS. Conduct a similar analysis to identify emission reduction targets for toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases. There are no NAAQS for these pollutants, but current emissions can be compared to EPA emission limits to determine compliance requirements.

We emphasize the importance of determining the number of tons of each pollutant to be removed to reduce pollution to below the airshed’s carrying capacity and to account for future economic activity. The “top-down tons” values calculated in step 3 provide the foundation for conversations between air and energy regulators, and with stakeholders and the public once an E-Merge plan is developed.

The next steps of an E-Merge process require coordination between air quality and energy officials:

4. Utilize system dynamics or an optimization model working against a database of potential emission reduction measures (e.g., a cost curve) to achieve the level of “top-down tons” identified along with other specified outcome criteria (e.g., reserve margins, reliability metrics, etc.). The model would be run iteratively until the target emission reductions are achieved by one or more scenarios. This process will identify optimal groups of control measures that achieve the shared goals of clean air and reliable electricity at the lowest cost. As in any modeling exercise, assumptions about variables that influence energy, environmental, and economic systems (such as fuel prices or technology costs) should be chosen to bound potential outcomes. Sensitivity runs are also advisable.

(System dynamics and optimization models are complex, time-consuming, and expensive to construct however. As a result, they may not be available for the first jurisdictions to pursue an E-Merge process. In the absence of these models, energy and air quality regulators could collaborate to identify potential energy supply (or energy savings) scenarios achievable through measures to boost the use of cost-effective, low-emission resources such as energy efficiency, demand response, distributed and utility-scale renewable energy, nuclear energy, etc. over the period contemplated by the plan. Steps 5, 6, and 7 describe the steps of this regulatory collaboration absent the availability of a comprehensive model.)

5. Estimate how much energy would be saved or generated by each resource and when. Local utilities may be able to help in this quest through dispatch and other modeling. For example, utilities could include “top-down tons” values as constraints in the model that must be met, or run their models as they normally do, but compare the results to the top-down ton goals.

6. Translate these energy values (the MWh saved or generated by each resource and when) into associated emission reductions. This too can be a complex endeavor, but several tools can facilitate the task, such as EPA’s Avoided Emissions and Generation Tool (AVERT), an RTO’s marginal emissions analysis, NERC’s regional data or state-specific data, etc. Ultimately, we expect new and better tools to evolve, whether from EPA or sector players like the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) or the National Energy Efficiency Registry (NEER) effort, that will enable jurisdictions to make compliance-quality emissions reduction estimates.

7. Add up these emissions reductions reflecting all resources and compare the sum to the “top-down tons” value determined in step 3 above. If the total emission reductions are less than those needed to meet air quality requirements or goals, the analysis should be reviewed to ensure that all cost-effective options are included, and then repeated with additional and/or modified measures as warranted. If additional control measures are needed, additional emissions reductions could be considered from power plants, industrial emissions, area sources, the transportation sector, or other sources.

8. Commence the administrative and/or legislative proceedings necessary to implement the optimal, least-cost suite of measures that reduces emissions enough to achieve the “top-down tons” goals.

Technologies, policies, and opportunities are all moving fast today, so new value is continually being created. Retooling regulation for cleaner air and cleaner energy through an E-Merge approach is one way to recognize and realize new value as it arises. Let’s seize the moment.

This is the second in a four-part series. Subsequent posts will elaborate on:

  • What obstacles states might face in conducting an E-Merge process; and
  • Where efforts similar or related to E-Merge have been undertaken around the globe, and what their results have been.

A version of this post originally appeared in Utility Dive.

The post Retooling Regulation: a Closer Look at Integrating Energy and Environmental Policy appeared first on Regulatory Assistance Project.

Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)'s picture
Thank Regulatory for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Nov 4, 2016

We cannot get forward before we get a level playing field.
First nuclear and the so-called renewable should get equal support – or no support.
Thereafter the fluctuating energy from sun and wind must pay for the necessary backup.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Nov 6, 2016

Let’s start:
– Increase the max’s in nuclear liabilitiy limitation laws (a subsidy of ~5cnt/KWh for nuclear). Suggest an increase of 10%/a until $1,000billion for accidents, and until 10,000years for nuclear waste..

– Implement faster depreciation of emission rights in EU ETS (now ~2.2%/a, suggest 20%/a), in order to limit more unfair competition by fossil.

– More strict control on nuclear to prevent fraud. Also serious punishments.
As fraud is now widespread in nuclear. Not only with figures (wilful costs underestimates), but even regulation evasion which endanger the population as shown in USA with SONGS, etc.
And now in France where important part of its nuclear fleet is out of order because of fraud with the steel quality.*)

Even in NL where the decommission fund of the only NPP (which is making losses) contains only €175mln while it should have >€500mln as the NPP surpassed its design lifetime… So tax-payers may pay main part of the €1200million the decommission wll cost.

– Decrease the subsidies for renewable with 10%/a.

– Decrease the subsidies for new nuclear with 10%/a.
Subsidies such as the loan guarantees, the price guarantees for produced electricity, decommission costs guarantees, Construction Work in Progress levies, etc.
*) Fraud requires a secrecy culture which apparently is becoming accepted in nuclear France as shown with the Fessenheim NPP.
Though such culture undermines public trust.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Nov 6, 2016

You write: “fraud is now widespread in nuclear.”
I doubt.
But I have proof, that some of the arguments used against nuclear – by the so-called trusted Greenpeace – are based upon fraud, or better: Systematic misinformation / lying.

I cannot say whether the accident at Fessenheim NPP was down-played. It may just as well have been “up-played”.
Anyhow this reactor was with a proper containment and even a severe accident (core meltdown) would not result in harm to people.
Just consider the accident at Three Mile Island and compare it to Chernobyl.

I agree with you that Subsidies such as the loan guarantees, the price guarantees for produced electricity, should be stopped or brought out in the open.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Nov 6, 2016

A pity that you don’t agree towards a level playing field!

I agree with you that Subsidies such as the loan guarantees … should be stopped or brought out in the open.
Those investment subsidies (shown behind the last – of my previous comment) are all already in the open. You agree with a fact….

So you don’t agree that the many major subsidies for nuclear should be stopped accordingly!

… even a severe accident (core meltdown) would not result in harm to people.
Real core meltdown occurred in Fukushima.
Estimations of the damage are now at ~$500B. And of course also serious health damage estimated by WHO (up to 7% more cancers for Fukushima children).

First research result showing significant increased perinatal deaths in near Fukushima areas with increased radiation, are recently published in scientific journal.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Nov 6, 2016

The “up to 7% more cancers for Fukushima children” is estimated based upon the LNT hypoteses, which is fairly outdated. See
Still nothing compared to the more than 2000 deaths in coal mines and the probably 2 million deaths from pollution, which could have been reduced significantly if we had gone hard in for nuclear.

Anyhow: It looks as you agree that the Fessenheim NPP probably has been up-played.

Whatever you find of new items, I think you should consider that you together with so many others have been cheated by Greenpeace.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Nov 6, 2016

LNT may be outdated in your opinion, but not according to the US National Academy of Sciences as also stated in the authoritive BEIR VII report.

There is no evidence which support your idea of up-playing. Opposite. If nuclear authorities didn’t want to hide things, they would have given the letters at first request…

Greenpeace cheated me?
I didn’t get any info from Greenpeace.
So they couldn’t cheat me.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »