Executive Order 13636 requires, among other things, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a “Baseline Framework to Reduce Cyber Risk to Critical Infrastructure.”  There is a lot of good detail as to what is expected to be in this framework, whose requirements run to a full page.  Recently, NIST hosted its first Cybersecurity Framework Workshop to address those necessities.  This particular workshop resulted from the following specific requirement: “In developing the Cybersecurity Framework, the Director shall engage in an open public review and comment process.”  The director of NIST must deliver a framework within 1 year of the publication of the Executive Order (EO); that is, no later than February 19, 2014.

I’m not sure what a framework workshop is, or how many times the word “work” must appear in a meeting title before people will believe that you plan to accomplish something.  At any rate, over 700 people attended the workshop ‑ quite large to qualify as a workshop.  Living in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, I remember years when the Texas Rangers could barely get 700 people to attend their baseball games (unless Nolan Ryan was pitching).  Besides, here in Texas, anything with 700 members is usually called a herd.

Engaged, Considered

Whatever you call it, this event was important.  Strictly speaking, the 700 workshop attendees were allowed to comment, but the EO only requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to “engage and consider” their advice.  Based upon past experience, the likelihood of their input being ignored is very low.

I may be a bit skeptical here because I’ve watched the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) labor to adopt seemingly minor clarifications to the CIP Reliability Standards (which it then invalidates).  It has repeatedly been hamstrung by large attendee lists that include sometimes contradictory agendas.  Anyway, quoting the EO, 9 months from now we shall have:

• A prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-effective approach, including information security measures and controls, to help owners and operators of critical infrastructure identify, assess, and manage cyber risk
• Methodologies to identify and mitigate impacts of the Cybersecurity Framework … on business confidentiality, and to protect individual privacy and civil liberties

After that, quoting Section 8(a) of the EO, “The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and any other interested entities.”

In other words, 1 year to develop a framework of non-binding recommendations for the protection of critical infrastructure.  Here in the smart grid world, we already have that.  It’s called the NISTIR 7628 series.  So maybe it’s a very good call to have NIST run this play.  But you’d have to accept that critical infrastructure owners will spend money on protection that they are not required to spend.  To date, that trend is not encouraging.

Overshadowed by the debate over natural gas exports, a battle is brewing in the Western United States over exports of coal to Europe and, especially, to the booming economies of Asia.  Buoyed by rising overseas demand for American coal, big coal producers including Arch Coal and Peabody are seeking to build new ports and new shipping facilities, particularly along the West Coast, to send U.S. coal from the Powder River Basin, in Montana and Wyoming, across the Pacific.

Those plans have met with fierce resistance from local residents and environmental groups.  ”I want to make it absolutely clear: I am vehemently opposed for a private, for-profit corporation to use eminent domain to condemn my private land for a rail line to export coal to China,” Clint McRae, a rancher whose family has owned their ranch in the Powder River Basin for 125 years, told a an Army Corps of Engineers hearing in Seattle last December, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Also lining up to oppose the exports are elected officials in Oregon and Washington who don’t wish to see huge coal export facilities built on their coastlines.  Saying that rail links to bring Powder River Basin coal to the West Coast “threaten the health of our communities, the strength of our economies, and the environmental and cultural heritage we share,” Seattle mayor Mick McGinn announced last month the formation of the Leadership Alliance Against Coal, which includes Native American tribal groups as well as politicians from towns in Washington State.

Black Piles

Behind the export push are the remaining Big Coal companies, particularly Arch Coal and Peabody, who have largely abandoned their mines in Appalachia and have seen their share prices drop by as much as two-thirds over the last 2 years as utilities across the United States have moved to burn low-cost natural gas rather than coal.  Peabody actually projects that U.S. coal consumption for power generation will rise in 2013, by 60 million to 80 million tons. Even as coal consumption drops in the United States over the long run, though, demand continues to climb in China, India, and even European countries like Germany, which is phasing out its fleet of nuclear power plants.

U.S. coal exports set a record last year of more than 124 million tons, topping the previous record set in 1981.  Because of “must-take” contracts signed years ago, some utilities in 2012 literally found themselves with piles of coal they didn’t want, and dumped these supplies of “distressed coal” on the international market. As a result, exports of coal are expected to drop this year, while remaining high.

Of six proposed coal export facilities on the West Coast, three have already been defeated. The battle over the remaining facilities could be Big Coal’s last stand in the United States.

Still, as I’ve written here before, the end of coal is likely to be prolonged.  The Economist Intelligence Unit, in a report released this month, said that increased overseas demand for the “surprisingly dynamic commodity will drive world coal consumption to more than 8.4 billion tons in 2015.  By far most of that growth will come from China – which puts the United States in the uncomfortable position of cutting its own use of the world’s dirtiest fuel, while feeding the coal hunger of less-developed economies.

Demand-side management must become a significant element of the European energy market if the EU’s ambition to build a low-carbon economy is to be realized.  The latest survey of European smart grid projects by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) points out the importance of this requirement.  Smart Grid Projects in Europe: Lessons Learned and Current Developments (2012 update), a follow-up to a similar study carried out in 2011, notes that a majority of the 281 projects covered focus on “distributed ICT architectures for coordinating distributed resources and providing demand and supply flexibility.”

One of the latest projects to join the roster of demand-side management pilots is the Danish city of Kalundborg.  The fact that Denmark already obtains 30% of its electricity from wind power – and targets 50% by 2020 – is making such projects an increasingly urgent requirement for the country.

Symbiotic System

Kalundborg has a population of around 16,000 within a local kommune (or municipality) of the same name extending to 50,000 people.  Its relatively small size belies the fact that it is the second-largest industrial region in Denmark after Copenhagen.  It is also notable for its long established cross-industry program, Kalundborg Symbiosis.  This program has evolved over several decades as an integrated system for waste recycling within the local industrial system.  Residual products from one industry, such as steam, dust, gases, heat, slurry, or any other waste products, are physically exchanged between enterprises, thereby reducing energy consumption, production costs, and environmental damage.

Smart City Kalundborg is a 3-year smart grid pilot with a budget of $18 million.  Launched in November 2012, the project is led by Danish utility SEAS-NVE, Dansk Energi (Danish Energy Association), Spirae, and the municipality of Kalundborg.  Other participants in the project include ABB, CleanCharge, Clever, Danfoss, Gaia Solar, DONG Energy, Gridmanager, and Schneider Electric.  Smart City Kalundborg will look at the integration of energy management across power, water, heating, transport, and building systems.  This entire system will be based on an open, intelligent platform called the Energy Services Hub.  The Hub will enable diverse participants to make specific energy resources available to the system via a publish-and-subscribe model.  An individual enterprise, water utility, or demand aggregator, for example, could use the platform to offer a specified demand response capacity to grid operators looking to manage fluctuations in power supply or reduce the need for network reinforcement.

The technical and market challenges to delivering such a system at a city scale are significant, of course.  However, the biggest question may be who is in the best position to operate such an Energy Services Hub.  One solution would be a joint venture between a municipality, one or more utilities, and a platform operator, but other models are possible.

Smart City Kalundborg is an innovative approach to deepening the connection between smart grids and smart cities.  While Kalundborg has much in common with other market-focused demand management projects in Europe, it differs in its attempt to include a wider range of city operations, including water management, transportation, and district heating.  Kalundborg Symbiosis has provided a synergistic network for the industrial system; Smart City Kalundborg project could provide a similar network for the local energy system.

Traditionally, when someone buys a house, they receive a card from their realtor that says, “Thanks for your business,” and a gift basket with some thoughtful housewarming gifts.  Now, thanks to new zoning codes in Lancaster, California, new homebuyers will also receive a brand-new solar photovoltaic (PV) system (though “receive” is probably a misnomer, as the cost of the system is presumably built into the home price).

Lancaster changed its zoning code in March 2013 to require a 1.0 to 1.5 kW PV system for every new home built on lots larger than 7,000 square feet or 1.5 kW systems for rural homes up to 100,000 square feet.  Builders will also have the option of building distributed systems for new developments.  For example, a builder could install a single 20 kW system for a 20-home development.  (Note that Sebastopol became the second California city to enact a solar requirement for new homes in May.)

Lancaster is the first city in the United States to require PV systems for new residential construction.  This regulation marks a significant win for solar companies, the renewable energy industry, and the state of California.  The advantages for the PV industry are obvious: the regulation will drive the market as new homes are built, creating revenue and jobs.  Widespread installations will also improve installation techniques and develop a base of skilled installers.  For California, this change will help relieve an already stressed electric grid that funnels power from the northwest to southern California (Lancaster is about 65 miles north of Los Angeles).

National Impact

Extrapolating numbers across the United States paints an even more ambitious picture.  The National Association of Home Builders forecasts that 647,000 new homes will be built (or at least started) nationwide in 2013.  Imagine that each of these homes comes with a 1.0 kW PV system installed; by the end of 2013, we would have a new 647 MW power plant distributed across the country.  It’s not quite that simple, but the point is this: a seemingly innocuous zoning change like Lancaster’s could have a tremendous impact once it scales across the country.

Furthermore, this would mean more good news for a growing North American PV market.  Navigant Research’s report, Distributed Solar Energy Generation, forecasts that 220 GW of distributed solar PV will be installed worldwide from 2013 to 2018, representing $540.3 billion in revenue, but the majority of that growth will come from Europe.  Extrapolating again, adding 647 MW of PV capacity each year in the United States would increase distributed PV capacity by approximately 15% to 20%.

Builders Object

Of course, there are numerous hurdles standing in the way of widespread adoption of anything similar to Lancaster’s zoning laws, and not everyone is applauding this move.  While there has been relatively little opposition from Lancaster residents, the homebuilders clearly object to the new codes.  Specifically, they feel that this change puts their product at a disadvantage when compared to the resale market.  Regardless, it will be interesting to see if other cities follow suit, making the new regulation a boon for the PV industry, or if Lancaster and Sebastopol prove exceptions in an already growing market.