Below read the 6 minute transcript of the Section 80 Powerline decisionmaking on June 14, 2022 by each of the three PUC members: Chair Phil Bartlett, Patrick Scully and Randall Davis. Listen to audio of the 6 minute section of the meeting.
At issue is whether (1) a non-wires distributed power system including solar, lunar and wind would be adequate to the projected future or (2) stay with the wires-only and make them massive and replace all the main powerlines All three voted for Maine to stay hooked on wires. No grid? No go! Seemingly uneasy with Change unready for that newfangled eco-stuff'. Many a buggywhip maker felt the same , time back
Chair Bartlett: "[T]he evidence does not support a finding that the proposed non powerline alternative meets the applicable reliability criteria and can reliably meet the identified need. " Can['t depnd on the fickle sun moon and ...tide?
PUC Chair Phil Bartlett opened the June 14th meeting
Good morning. Welcome to deliberations of June 14, 2022. We have six items on our agenda today.
The first is Docket Number 2011 -138. Pending before us is CMPs petition for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to rebuild Section 80, which runs between Windsor and Warren.
The non wires alternative coordinator issued a report identifying an unwired alternative for our consideration.
Pursuant to 35A MrsA 30 sec 31 and 32, we first must assess whether there's a public need for the proposed transmission line.
Here the need has been well documented over the years. The potential need for this project was identified over a decade ago, but deferred for consideration of non transmission alternatives.
More recently, ISO New England found reliability deficiencies in studies conducted in 2020 and 2021, and reaffirmed the need for this project at a technical conference in February of this year.
Accordingly, I find that there is a public need as required by Section 31-32.
The next question is whether the identified need can be reliably met by the non wires alternative.
What is striking about this record is how many disputes of fact there are around seemingly technical issues. In some cases, the parties seem to be talking past each other with respect to the import or need for certain studies and analysis.
After reviewing the record, I tend to agree with the examiner's report that the evidence does not support a finding that the proposed non powerline alternative meets the applicable reliability criteria and can rely reliably meet the identified need.
Of particular significance is the potential impact on the sub transmission system of the non wires alternative.
The Section 80 rebuild proposal put forward by CMP was limited to the bulk electric system. In contrast, the non wires alternative relies on upgrades to the underlying 35.5 KV system. CMP's analysis identified adverse impacts on the lower voltage system that would need to be resolved.
The NWA coordinator did not study this impact and offered no analysis to counter this evidence.
Another issue in dispute was whether to consider the winter peak. Doing so is consistent with their criteria. And there's significant evidence in the record that questions the adequacy of relying on DRS as proposed to the NWA during the winter peak.
Given the reliance on solar generation, it'd be irresponsible not to consider whether the reliability achieved in the summer months would apply to the winter peak as well.
For these reasons, as well as others detailed in the examiner's report, I find there's insufficient evidence in the record to support the contention that the non wires alternative can reliably meet the identified need.
Even if it could, it is doubtful the nonwires alternative could do so more cost effectively. The benefit cost analysis shows a razor thin net benefit, it does not include significant costs, including the need for additional upgrades to make the non wires alternative reliable solution.
Accordingly, I would grant CMPs petition for Certificate of Public convenience and necessity.
While I cannot accept this particular non wireless alternative, I do want to emphasize the importance of exploring cost effective alternatives to transmission.
With a new statutory planning process for our largest electric utility utilities, there may be opportunities to improve and strengthen the NWA process going forward.
Finally, there were many comments to this docket with respect to a particular customer Nordic Aqua farms. I want to be clear that the evidence of the record demonstrates that the rebuild of Section 80 would be needed even without the potential future load growth from Nordic Aqua farms.
Moreover, utilities are prohibited from unfairly discriminating against customers. And the commission generally has no role in deciding whether a particular customer shouldn't be allowed to interconnect electric system so long as they can do so safely and reliably.
Commissioner Randall Davis:
" The OPA's April 15th exceptions to the April 6 Examiner's Report urges the commission to reject the examiner's report recommendations and deny Central Maine Power a Certificate of Public convenience and necessity for the Section 80 project at this time.
I am not persuaded by the OPAs arguments. Under other circumstances, I believe that many technical and engineering questions would or at least could have been answered.
I cannot decipher whether the unanswered questions are related to the passage of time, which has been approximately 14 years since a Section 80 rebuild was first proposed, or perhaps the changes in legal statutes or jurisdictional changes between the local TND and ISO New England over the 14 years are driving the lack of clarity.
Most every project is faced with ever changing decision inputs and assumptions for the future, with this project being no different.
What is different with this project is the general agreement among the parties that something must be done, and I believe that resolution should not wait for an additional undetermined length of time.
For the reasons articulated by Chair Bartlett. I will adopt the examiner's report recommendations.
Thank you.
Commissioner Patrick Scully:
"I agree with the analysis of my colleagues and I would grant this CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) for the rebuild of Section 80.
As has been said, based on the record, I conclude and there appears to be consensus among the parties, that of reliability need exist..
I'm unconvinced, based upon the record in this matter, that the proposed NWA meets that reliability need, particularly with respect to the two issues Chair Bartlett identified, involving both the winter peak question and the potential impacts on the sub-transmission system.
And I find that the benefit-cost analysis of the proposed NWA does not support it as a less cost costly alternative, as it is, in best case, extraordinarily close .
And very likely, if not certainly, doesn't reflect all of the costs that would be necessary to ensure that the NWA was built in a manner that preserve the reliability of the system. Thank you.
END OF PUC ON SECTION 80
