Senate Majority Leader says Congress could block Clean Power Plan

By Paul Cimapoli, News Director, American Public Power Association
From the May 7, 2015 issue of Public Power Daily

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recently said that Congress could utilize a section of the Clean Air Act to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

McConnell made his remarks at an April 29 hearing to review the Fiscal Year 2016 funding request and budget justification for the EPA. The hearing was held by the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy appeared before the subcommittee at the hearing.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan was proposed by the agency in June 2014. It would require states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants from 2005 levels by 30 percent by 2030. Under the EPA’s proposal, states would be required to submit state plans to the EPA in 2016 and to begin to meet interim goals in 2020.

McConnell said that one of McCarthy’s deputies recently told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “that multi-state plans are a significant part of your strategy.”

In comments to McCarthy, the Senate majority leader said, “I’d like to acquaint you” with Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act, which he said requires Congressional consent for cooperative agreements. McConnell said that the law states that no such agreement “or compact shall be binding or obligatory” upon any state “unless and until” it has been approved by Congress. “Doesn’t seem ambivalent to me,” McConnell said.

“I can assure you that as long as I’m majority leader of the Senate, this body’s not going to be signing off on any backdoor energy tax,” McConnell said.

It remains unclear whether Section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act could be used to block multi-state agreements.

In March, McConnell wrote a letter to the nation’s governors in which he urged them to “carefully review the consequences before signing up for this deeply misguided plan. I believe you will find, as I have, that the EPA’s proposal goes far beyond its legal authority and that the courts are likely to strike it down. All of which raises the very important question of why the EPA is asking states at this time to propose their own compliance plans in the first place.”

Senate committee examines legal implications of EPA plan

Meanwhile, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee on May 5 held a hearing to examine the legal implications of the Clean Power Plan.

In her opening remarks, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., who chairs the subcommittee, said that many states “have raised grave concerns about the legality of the rule and the implications for their citizens and ratepayers. In addition to significant Constitutional and other legal questions, states have expressed concerns about the feasibility of EPA’s proposed requirements and the likely impacts on electricity costs and reliability.”

Capito said that next week “I will be introducing greenhouse gas legislation with my colleagues that will preserve the proper balance of state and federal authority, help ensure reliable and affordable electricity, and protect jobs and our economy.”

Witnesses at the hearing included West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. In his prepared testimony, Morrisey noted that West Virginia is one of 15 states involved in a lawsuit before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The legal action targets EPA’s authority to issue any rule regulating existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act when EPA has already regulated the same source category under Section 112 of the act.

“If this administration elects to finalize this rule, West Virginia will challenge it in court and we expect that the coalition of 15 states that we’re currently working with will grow,” the West Virginia attorney general said.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt told the hearing that the EPA “does not possess the authority under the Clean Air Act to do what it is seeking to accomplish in the so-called Clean Power Plan.”

He said that the EPA, “under this administration, treats states like a vessel of federal will. The EPA believes states exist to implement the policies the Administration sees fit, regardless of whether laws like the Clean Air Act permit such action.”

Pruitt said that the Clean Air Act “hinges on ‘cooperative federalism’ by giving states the primary responsibility and role for regulation while providing a federal backstop if the states should fail to act.”

When the EPA “respects the role of the states, the cooperative relationship works well. When the EPA exceeds the constraints placed upon the agency by Congress, the relationship is thrown out of balance and the rule of law and state sovereignty is affected adversely,” the Oklahoma attorney general said.

The Clean Power Plan proposal “throws the cooperative relationship between the states and the federal government off balance,” he said.

Other witnesses at the hearing were Roger Martella, Jr., a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, Kelly Speakes-Backman, commissioner of the Maryland Public Service Commission and Chair of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. Board of Directors and Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

In her written testimony submitted for the hearing, Speakes-Backman argued that the basic structure of EPA’s proposed rule is sound, “although the RGGI states recommend that EPA adopt certain revisions to ensure that early action is recognized, and that the state targets are verifiable, transparent, equitable, and enforceable.”

She also said in the written testimony that the RGGI states “have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve cost-effective pollution reductions while maintaining grid reliability, and while having a positive impact on ratepayers and our overall economies.”

RGGI is a regional carbon dioxide emissions program launched in January 2009. It was the first market-based regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The cooperative effort is mandatory in the participating states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Speakes-Backman addressed some of the key lessons learned from the RGGI that can be applied to implementing EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan in an exclusive interview published in Public Power Weekly in late 2014.

On the other side of Capitol Hill, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 29 approved legislation that would allow for judicial review of any final EPA rule to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act before the rule could take effect.

FERC commissioner discusses Clean Power Plan

Colette Honorable, a FERC commissioner, on May 5 discussed the Clean Power Plan in remarks before an audience of energy attorneys in Washington, DC.

“I’d like to talk with you very briefly about a few of my priorities as I see them in my first” four months at FERC, she said at the Energy Bar Association’s annual meeting and conference. Honorable was sworn in on Jan. 5 as a commissioner with FERC.

“Clearly, job number one for me is reliability,” Honorable told the gathering of energy attorneys. During a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing in December related to her nomination as a FERC commissioner, Honorable said that electric reliability would be a top priority for her at the federal agency.

In her remarks before the Energy Bar Association meeting, she noted that the EPA is in the final stages of issuing the final rule under the agency’s Clean Power Plan. “EPA has sought advice and counsel from the FERC and I am eager to give that,” she said.
With respect to the Clean Power Plan, there are a “few issues that really rise to the top for me,” she said.

“One, clearly, is the reliability safety valve issue and the notion of developing some sort of a reliability mechanism that could be employed,” Honorable said.

Honorable said that “another takeaway for me” involves the “importance of collaboration and cooperation.” She said, “We really won’t get very far if we don’t work well together.” Honorable noted that she has “often said, no matter what you think about this plan, we absolutely are going to get a plan this summer – mid to late summer.”

She said that it “behooves all of us to prepare and do the work we do so well day in and day out to contemplate the possibilities, the scenarios, the plans and what we will do” if the rule is upheld.

“If we wait and do nothing, in my opinion, we’ve lost an opportunity,” she said.

Honorable also highlighted the “importance of the regions and the regional efforts that are underway.”

Senate environment committee plans March 11 hearing on EPA rule on CO2

This article originally appeared in the March 9, 2015 issue of American Public Power Association’s Public Power Daily.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing Wednesday, March 11, to hear from state utility regulators on their views of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The proposed rule is known as the Clean Power Plan.

The draft EPA rule, issued by the agency in June 2014, is designed to require states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants from 2005 levels by 30 percent by 2030, according to the agency.

The Senate hearing is entitled, “Examining State Perspectives of the EPA’s Proposed Carbon Dioxide Emissions Rule for Existing Power Plants.”

Witnesses will include Thomas Easterly, a commissioner with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management; Todd Parfitt, director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality; Michael J. Myers, section chief with the Environmental Protection Bureau at the New York State Attorney General’s Office; Ellen Nowak, chairperson of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; and Mary D. Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board.

The Senate hearing will take place the same day as a regional technical conference that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is holding on the EPA proposal in Washington, D.C. that will focus on the EPA rule’s potential effects in the East.

The House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold a hearing March 17 to examine the EPA’s proposed plan.

At a Feb. 19 technical conference held by FERC to examine the EPA plan, the American Public Power Association’s president and CEO, Sue Kelly,urged FERC to take an “active role” on the EPA plan. See also Kelly’s blog on the topic.

Dozens of states face double-digit power price increases under EPA Clean Power Plan, Inhofe says

From the February 12, 2015 issue of Public Power Daily by the American Public Power Association

Originally published February 11, 2015

By Jeannine Anderson, News Editor, American Public Power Association

Under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, “at least 43 states will face double-digit electricity price increases,” Sen. Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a Feb. 11 hearing examining the EPA’s proposed carbon dioxide emissions rules for new, modified, and existing power plants.

“Thirty-one states now oppose your Clean Power Plan,” the Oklahoma Republican told Janet McCabe, the EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, who was the lone witness at the hearing. “I am concerned that your agency intends to impose the most expensive regulation in history yet fail to achieve your goals,” Inhofe said. An analysis by NERA, an economic consulting and analysis firm, says the EPA plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants will cost “as much as $73 billion per year and upwards of $469 billion over the next 15 years,” he said.

“It’s difficult to know what the new source performance standards would cost, however, because no one will build a new coal plant,” Inhofe said. “We’ll have to take the president at his word from his interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January of 2008 when he said, ‘So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.’”

Inhofe noted that by mid-summer, the environmental agency plans to finalize three separate rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at power plants.

Senators at the hearing questioned McCabe about the EPA plan, with Republicans generally opposing the plan, and Democrats generally supporting it.

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, noted that power plants produce 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. She called attention to a recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA that 2014 was the hottest year on record. “Climate change is happening now – we can’t afford to wait,” she said.

Chairman Inhofe and Sen. John Boozman, R-Arkansas, both cited a 2014 report by the Southwest Power Pool that warned that the EPA rule could result in cascading outages and voltage collapse.

“I have concerns regarding reliability,” said Boozman. The SPP report found that significant new generating capacity will be needed, as well as new transmission. All this will be costly, and will hurt electricity customers, he said.

In the October 2014 report, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) said the EPA’s proposed rule on carbon dioxide reductions for existing power plants would hurt reliability. Under the current timetable for complying with the proposed rule, the SPP region could face severe overloads leading to cascading outages, the regional grid operator said. In comments  it filed with the EPA on Oct. 9, 2014, the grid operator said there was a “very real possibility” of cascading outages, rolling blackouts and voltage collapse in several states unless the agency delays its compliance deadlines by at least five years.

Boozman noted that the SPP had recommended that the EPA meet with the Federal Energy Regulatory  Commission in areas covered by regional power markets, to discuss possible impacts on reliability.

“Actually, those technical conferences are already scheduled, and the first one will be next week,” McCabe responded.

“Very good,” replied Boozman.

McCabe said the EPA expects that the final Clean Power Plan, which it plans to issue by midsummer, will be different from the rule as proposed in June. She said the agency has received “unprecedented” public comment on the proposed rule, with 2 million comments filed so far on the rule for new power plants, and 3.5 million comments received so far on the proposed rules for: 1) existing plants, and 2) modified or reconstructed plants.

“We are confident the final rule will be improved because of the input” from states, stakeholders, agencies and others, McCabe said. “We are preparing to provide states with the assistance they will need,” she added, explaining that the EPA plans to issue its proposal for a federal implementation plan (FIP) by midsummer.

The agency prefers that states submit their own plans for complying with the Clean Power Plan, McCabe said. She noted, however, that the Clean Air Act calls for a federal backstop for states that either cannot or will not create their own plans.

Senator from Nebraska voices concerns
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Nebraska, pointed out that Nebraska is the only state whose electricity is provided entirely by consumer-owned utilities — either public power utilities or rural electric cooperatives.  She said she is worried that the costs of complying with the EPA rule “will be directly borne by Nebraska consumers, via their power bills.”

Fischer also questioned the “building blocks” proposed by the EPA as possible ways of complying with the rule on CO2. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has said one of the building blocks is unachievable for her state, she said, asking McCabe whether the EPA planned to correct this.

“We received many, many comments and are looking at them very closely,” replied McCabe, adding that the building blocks are meant as a starting point for states, not as requirements in and of themselves. “In the final rule, we very much want to maintain flexibility” as to how states meet the requirements, she added.

“Flexibility sounds great,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi. “But if the only way we can achieve this is to shut down our power plants, then we have no flexibility at all.”

Nebraska’s Sen. Fischer questioned the EPA’s assumptions on heat rate improvements at power plants, and noted that generating units are the most efficient when at full load.

“These are important issues” that the EPA is examining carefully, McCabe said.

“Will you commit to me that, when contacted [by Nebraskans], you will respond – and keep me updated?” Fischer asked.

McCabe said she would.

“I think you’ll be getting a lot of calls,” observed Fischer.

“We’re happy to get them,” the EPA official said.

“It’s clear that carbon is a problem,” said Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Maryland. “Carbon causing climate change is real,” and extreme weather events caused by the warming trend are costing billions of dollars, he said.

“We have a responsibility to act,” Cardin said, noting that Maryland is part of the multi-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The steps his state has taken to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions have been good for Maryland’s economy, he said, adding, “We believe a healthy environment and a robust economy go side by side.”

Citing problems with shrimp and lobster fisheries, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, said, “Climate change is taking dollars and jobs out of New England’s economy.”

“I support this rule wholeheartedly,” Whitehouse said. He urged his Senate colleagues to “look at both sides of the ledger” when thinking about this issue.

The regulation of carbon dioxide “has been a long time coming,” said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, who said his state has made significant investments in energy efficiency. He expressed concern about “inequities in the state targets” in the EPA plan.

“This has been raised by many stakeholders,” McCabe replied. “We certainly don’t want a rule that would disincentivize states from taking early actions.”

Carper pointed out that Delaware is a very low-lying state, subject to being eaten away by rising sea levels.

“I’m trying to make sure my state remains on the map,” he said.

“Ninety-five percent of our electricity comes from coal,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia. “We export half the electricity we produce.” She said she is worried about the costs the EPA rules will impose on taxpayers and electricity consumers in West Virginia. She also chastised the EPA for not visiting her state, which she said is the second largest producer of coal, after Wyoming.

“States that are very coal-intensive will remain coal-intensive,” said McCabe, adding that she is from Indiana, another state that relies heavily on coal for its electricity. The Clean Power Plan “was designed in a way to acknowledge the differences” between states, she said.

“We very much tried to build this into the rule,” McCabe said. “It is not reasonable to expect a West Virginia or an Indiana to become a Delaware.”

McCabe said the EPA expects coal to continue to have an important place in the U.S. energy mix. The agency projects that in 2030, coal will produce about 30 percent of U.S. electricity, with natural gas also producing 30 percent, she said.

EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan wrong for South Dakota, PUC says

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed plan to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants will have harmful results on the reliability and affordability of electricity in South Dakota if implemented as it is currently written, warned the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. The PUC responded to the EPA’s call for comments to its Clean Power Plan by thoroughly analyzing the proposal, discussing effects with South Dakota stakeholders and submitting extensive written comments to the federal agency this month. Those comments can be read on the PUC’s website at www.PUC.SD.gov/energy/111dcomments.aspx

In mid-June of this year the EPA rolled out its proposed rule to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants under the Clean Air Act §111(d). The agency initially opened a comment period until mid-October for the myriad parties that would be affected by the complex rule to share their concerns. The EPA extended the comment period to Dec. 1, after receiving feedback from numerous parties about the compressed timeline. The EPA expects to finalize the rule by June 1, 2015. States will be required to submit their plans on how to comply with the rule by June 30, 2016. The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources will be responsible for compiling and filing the state plan with the EPA.

In its proposed rule, the EPA specifies carbon reduction goals for the state that are based on national or regional averages with no consideration for the production and dispatch of energy in South Dakota that crosses state boundaries. The existing power plants in South Dakota targeted by the EPA’s proposal are the Big Stone Plant, a coal-fired plant near Milbank jointly operated by Otter Tail Power Co., NorthWestern Energy and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; and Deer Creek Station, a natural gas combined cycle plant near Elkton owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative. The EPA’s proposal does not give credit for carbon-free electricity generated by hydropower plants located along the Missouri River in South Dakota.

PUC Commissioners Gary Hanson, Chris Nelson and Kristie Fiegen are unified in their opposition to the EPA’s proposed plan and in supporting the comments the PUC has filed. Paramount among their concerns are the proposal’s use of flawed assumptions and suggestions of carbon emission reductions that are not technically feasible, resulting in dramatic increases in the cost of electricity to consumers and a reckless disregard for electric reliability.

The PUC’s written comments focus on four primary elements: educating the EPA about South Dakota’s electric industry; identifying concerns with EPA’s short compliance timeline; identifying technical issues with the building blocks EPA has specified for states to use to comply with the Clean Power Plan; and providing economic impacts forecasted for South Dakota.

“The EPA’s proposal will be destructive to our economy,” said PUC Chairman Hanson. “I agree that environmental prudence should be part of national energy policy. I also firmly believe that energy must be affordable and reliable. I am frustrated that the EPA’s plan obviously bypasses essential facts about South Dakota’s reality. If the plan is unchanged, our state’s consumers will pay dearly,” he concluded.

“I believe the comments the PUC submitted to the EPA do a great job of stating why the EPA’s proposal is unrealistic and unattainable for South Dakota without significant cost,” stated PUC Vice Chairman Nelson. “This plan concerns me to the core and the PUC will continue to do all that we can to moderate its impact to South Dakota consumers, farmers and business people,” Nelson said.

“South Dakota is known for its common sense approach to challenges and changes,” commented Commissioner Fiegen. “Unfortunately, the EPA doesn’t place common sense very high on its priority scale, as reflected in this proposed plan. It is important that South Dakota energy consumers know that the PUC will continue to dig our heels in and advocate for rational and reasonable solutions on their behalf,” she said.

The PUC hosted a forum in July 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan with representatives of South Dakota’s electric industry, the EPA and the state’s congressional delegation. Access presentations and recordings of the forum at www.PUC.SD.gov/energy/111dcomments.aspx

Attorneys general say ‘numerous legal defects’ provide grounds for invalidation of EPA proposed plan for existing plants

By Paul Ciampoli, News Director, American Public Power Association
From the December 1, 2014 issue of Public Power Daily; Originally published November 26, 2014
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants “has numerous legal defects, each of which provides an independent basis to invalidate the rule in its entirety,” 17 attorneys general said in Nov. 26 comments filed at the EPA.
In June, EPA proposed emission guidelines for carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, invoking its authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).EPA’s proposal “attempts to use the Clean Air Act to override states’ energy policies and impose a national energy and resource-planning policy that picks winners and losers based solely on EPA’s policy choices, forcing states to favor renewable energy sources and demand-reduction measures over fossil fuel-fired electric production,” the attorneys general said in their comments. “But the Clean Air Act generally and Section 111(d) specifically do not give EPA that breathtakingly broad authority to reorganize states’ economies,” they said.

The attorneys general said that the proposed rule is unlawful because, among other things, EPA has chosen to regulate coal-fired power plants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Section 111(d) specifically prohibits EPA from invoking that same section of the law [Section 111(d)] where the “source category . . . is regulated under” Section 112, the attorneys general said.

“Given the multitude of legal deficiencies in its proposal, some of which go to the heart of its authority to regulate fossil-fuel-fired power plants under Clean Air Act Section 111(d), EPA should honor the Act’s core statutory limitations on its authority and formally determine that Section 111(d) standards are not appropriate for fossil fuel-fired power plants,” they argued.

If EPA does finalize Section 111(d) standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants, “it should not perpetuate the unlawful act by attempting to reorganize states’ energy economies, but should instead promulgate emission guidelines based on the best system of emission reduction that is actually achievable at individual facilities, which states could then consider in establishing performance standards to individual power plants in their jurisdictions,” the attorneys general added.

Stating that the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard rule will cause the retirement of more than 34 gigawatts of fossil fuel-fired electric generating capacity, the attorneys general went on to cite a NERA Economic Consulting study that projects the EPA’s proposed plan for existing plants will result in between 46 and 169 additional gigawatts of capacity being retired unless EPA makes significant corrections.

Specifically, the study projects coal-unit retirements of between 97 and 220 gigawatts, as compared to 51 gigawatts under a baseline scenario, the attorneys general said.

“Retirements on this scale are likely to seriously threaten the reliability of our nation’s electric supply,” they argued. “State regulators and industry stakeholders have warned that the proposal will force them to choose between meeting its requirements at the risk of potentially violating” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reliability mandates, “or complying with those mandates at the risk of failure to comply with the proposal.”

The attorneys general also said that the plant retirements “are likely to impose significant costs on ordinary citizens throughout the country. The NERA study projects an increase in total consumer energy costs of between $366 billion and $479 billion over the period 2017-2031.”

The comments were submitted by attorneys general from the following states: West Virginia, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.

WECC also weighs in

Meanwhile, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) is recommending that the agency provide adequate time to identify reliability implications of proposed state compliance plans.

WECC on Nov. 25 posted its comments to EPA on WECC’s website. Since WECC does not operate, site, or own generation or transmission infrastructure, it has no direct economic interest in how states comply with the EPA’s proposed plan, it noted.

“However, the implementation plans that states will develop to comply with the proposed Clean Power Plan will drive BES changes that must be assessed to assure continued reliable operation of the Western Interconnection,” WECC went on to say.

WECC said that the EPA should allow at least 180 days following the filing of state compliance plans for the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), WECC, and other reliability entities to concurrently evaluate the potential reliability impacts of those plans.

The proposed plan “is complex and could have far-reaching and possibly unforeseen impacts. The success of a state’s compliance plan and the reliability” of the bulk electric system “are best served if the complying states and participating utilities, transmission planning regions, and other stakeholders are provided ample time for reliability analyses,” WECC said. This would provide additional time for evaluation of reliability implications, multi-state planning and infrastructure investments, the council said.

WECC also said that the EPA should create and communicate a process for reliability entities such as WECC to highlight reliability implications of any state compliance plan in the Western Interconnection.

“As the reliability assurer for the Western Interconnection, WECC requests that the EPA consider the range of [bulk electric system] reliability issues that may result from the implementation” of the proposed plan “and allow time for necessary studies and reliability assessments, state planning, and industry development processes.”

WECC recommended creating a process within the proposed plan that considers timing adjustments or the granting of extensions if there is a demonstrable reliability need identified. “Once states develop implementation plans, WECC will be able to consider additional analyses to understand the reliability impact on an interconnection-wide basis,” the council added.