Today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a rule through Order 1920 that will bring regional transmission planning into the modern era. This rule is a particularly big deal for the Southeast, as it will now require regional utilities to plan for the future and find ways for transmission to lower costs, improve reliability, and improve utilities’ ability to connect clean energy resources to the grid at the pace required to decarbonize the electricity sector.
Currently, regional transmission “planning” in the Southeast is conducted by an entity called the Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP). The SERTP process is run by utilities, and meets the bare minimum of requirements from FERC’s Order 1000. That means that SERTP’s current process does not result in any transmission plans that provide regional benefits, but instead stack each utility’s transmission plans together like layers of a cake.
Under Order 1920, SERTP will have nearly a year to file a compliance plan outlining changes to its process to meet Order 1920 requirements.

Comparison of current SERTP process to requirements under FERC Order 1920
This order will change regional transmission planning in the Southeast by requiring SERTP to: look out farther into the future (at least 20 years); look at multiple potential futures (at least 3 scenarios); and look at multiple benefits. FERC requires consideration of seven specific benefits:
- Avoided or deferred reliability transmission facilities and aging infrastructure replacement
- Either reduced loss of load probability or reduced planning reserve margin
- Production cost savings
- Reduced transmission energy losses
- Reduced congestion due to transmission outages
- Mitigation of extreme weather events and unexpected system conditions
- Capacity cost benefits from reduced peak energy losses
FERC Chairman Willie Phillips stated that the Order’s number (1920) was chosen as a tribute to the creation of the Federal Power Commission (FPC), FERC’s predecessor, which was created by Congress in 1920. He goes on to state that the FPC was formed “to solve the urgent national challenge of how to develop energy infrastructure… needed to meet the demands of an emerging global superpower. Why did Congress do that? Because in 1920… Congress had fully grasped that large-scale development of the nation’s power infrastructure was essential.” Phillips continued, saying that “even in 1920 we as a country recognized that, when it comes to the electric system, we are all in this together.”
FERC also issued a second rule related to transmission today: Order 1977, focused on streamlining the permitting process for electric transmission. This order will also be impactful in the Southeast, however it is Order 1920 that will more likely address the first roadblock to transmission: shifting from piecemeal transmission within utility fiefdoms to holistic regional transmission planning for the common good.
We at SACE look forward to working with utilities and state regulators across the Southeast to find the best way to implement this rule and get the region on a path to transmission planning for the future.
The post FERC Puts the “Planning” in Regional Transmission Planning in the Southeast appeared first on SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
FERC Puts the “Planning” in Regional Transmission Planning in the Southeast
Renewable Energy
California a “Failed State?”
Disgusting. It’s one thing that “news” in the United States has largely been replaced by incendiary opinions. But it’s even worse that so many of these opinions are so grossly ill-informed.
In its quest to move to the middle of the political spectrum, CNN has integrated a few hard-right commentator, like Jennings. Fine; I get that. But do they have to be morons?
In particular, can’t CNN do better than to refer to California as a “failed state?” If California were a nation it would be the fourth largest economy on the planet, having recently overtaken Japan.
Renewable Energy
North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant
Despite massive uncertainty across the economy, Duke Energy is plowing ahead with its plan to build new fossil gas-fired power plants to serve data center, manufacturing, and other large customer load that may not even show up. Duke has asked the NC Utilities Commission for permission to build a combined-cycle (CC) gas plant in Person County, North Carolina, at the site of Duke’s Roxboro coal plant.
SACE has argued against the need for this gas power plant in the Certificate of Public Need and Necessity (CPCN) docket, submitting testimony to the Commission on Monday, June 9, 2025. Here’s a summary of that testimony (prepared by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.), which explains what this all means for Duke’s billpayers, and how Duke can make changes within its control to protect customers and reduce pollution. These recommendations include:
- Not approving this new gas power plant because the risks that it will increase bills are too high. Instead, Duke should improve the processes that are holding back lower-cost renewables and storage, then use renewables and storage to meet new load.
- Instead of approving this specific gas plant, the Commission should order Duke to use an all-source procurement process to determine a portfolio of flexible assets that can meet the utility’s needs based on real-world costs.
- In the event the Commission approves this gas plant, it should protect customers from high bills due to volatile gas prices by instituting a fuel cost sharing mechanism for the fuel costs spent to run this plant.
Duke Doesn’t Need this Risky Gas Power Plant
Duke’s claim that it needs this fossil gas power plant is based on outdated analysis. In this CPCN docket, Duke relies on its 2023 Carbon Plan Integrated Resource Plan (CPIRP) modeling and the CPIRP supplemental update and analysis filed in January 2024. The world has changed dramatically since then, and it is important that the Commission review the latest information before approving expenditures that will impact customer bills for decades.
Duke’s load forecast – once based on steady, predictable growth – is now subject to significant uncertainty as 1) data center developers look around the country for the best deal and the fastest interconnection to the grid and 2) manufacturers announce projects and then pull back as political uncertainty changes the economics of those projects. Under Duke’s current rate structure, prospective companies and site developers do not need to commit much money to become part of Duke’s load forecast. They have very little “skin in the game,” and Duke currently does not have policies in place to change this. If the Commission allows Duke to build an expensive fossil gas plant for load that doesn’t materialize, Duke’s remaining customers will be on the hook to pay for it.
Duke’s own load forecast updates since 2023 show that there are wild swings in its predictions. In the Spring of 2023, Duke anticipated 8 new large load projects during its 10-year planning forecast period, requiring an average of 169 MW each. Then for Fall 2023 (the supplemental update filed in January 2024), Duke anticipated 35 projects requiring an average of 111 MW each. In Summer 2024, Duke changed its forecast again, projecting 39 projects requiring an average of only 103 MW. And in May 2025, Duke filed an update showing a reduction in the number of projects back down to 35 but a dramatic increase in average need – back up to 169 MW. Duke’s forecasts will continue to show swings up and down – both in the number of projects and megawatts – until Duke has policies in place that require more commitment from the companies that knock on its door requesting service. Duke also has not published information regarding the location of these loads – the latest forecast applies to all of Duke Energy in both North and South Carolina.
It is also important to know that that this gas plant isn’t needed to meet growing load from existing customers or to replace retiring coal plants (according to Duke’s own testimony). This gas plant is being justified by new manufacturing and data centers claiming they will be operating somewhere in Duke Energy Progress or Duke Energy Carolinas territory in North or South Carolina.
Even if the load shows up, this plant won’t be needed for long
Even Duke admits that it doesn’t “need” this fossil gas power plant for very long. These kinds of power plants, combined-cycle plants, are typically used about 80% of the time, i.e. they are “baseload” power plants. But even absent federal carbon regulations, Duke expects this power plant’s usage to decline significantly throughout its 35-year lifetime (from 80% in 2030 decreasing to 46% by 2040 and only 13% by 2050 onwards). As cheaper renewables and storage with zero fuel costs are brought online, they will displace this plant. Duke is proposing to build a giant power plant that will very quickly run less and less – but Duke’s customers will continue to pay for it until 2065—15 years past a state law requiring Duke’s generation fleet to be carbon neutral. This represents a significant change in how power plants are built and run, and this is not in the best interest of Duke’s billpayers. To add insult to injury, Duke hasn’t even procured all of the equipment needed to build this plant, so the costs could skyrocket even more than they already have since last year’s carbon plan proceeding.
Renewables are flexible, would protect customers, and would reduce pollution
Duke’s model only chose a gas plant to meet this capacity need because of limits Duke imposed on the model. Duke claims it cannot interconnect renewables and storage fast enough to meet this capacity need, but the reasons it cannot interconnect those resources faster are all within Duke’s control. As Synapse recommends, Duke needs to update its processes that are holding back renewables and storage from serving customers with low-cost and low-risk resources. These processes include interconnection and transmission planning.
SACE has been advocating for improvements to these processes for years, and Duke has made changes to both its interconnection process and transmission planning. Duke was one of the first utilities in the Southeast to implement cluster studies in its interconnection process, and it is in the midst of the first scenario-based transmission planning exercise in the region. But is there evidence that these updates have helped if Duke continues to limit solar and storage in its future resource modeling? Given the much quicker interconnection process recently demonstrated in Texas, this raises the question of how hard Duke is really trying to streamline renewables interconnection.
Modular, flexible resources such as wind, solar, and energy storage can be adjusted in quantity based on market conditions. As our testimony from Synapse states, “This modularity, combined with the fact that solar and wind have zero exposure to fuel price volatility once they are constructed, makes these resources particularly valuable in the face of trade tariff uncertainty.”
The bottom line is that the Commission needs a lot more certainty about load growth and costs before committing Duke’s billpayers to any type of large fossil gas power plant. We simply do not have that now.
The post North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant appeared first on SACE | Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant
Renewable Energy
Ultimate Guide To Understanding Every Type Of Solar Panel
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year ago
US SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban