On behalf of Eversource Electric in Connecticut, Synapse developed an active demand reduction (ADR) benefit-cost (BC) screening model. Additionally, Synapse investigated storage benefits beyond those captured in the 2018 Avoided Energy Supply Costs study to be used either as quantitative inputs to the BC screening model or as qualitative information that will support the development of storage programs. By drawing upon literature reviews and common industry assumptions, Synapse produced storage non-energy benefits that could be input into the ADR BC model.

Synapse Energy Economics, as a subcontractor to Eastern Research Group, provided energy sector modeling services in support of the Cape Cod Commission’s efforts to explore the economic impacts of climate change. Energy sector modeling focused on an exploration of several greenhouse gas emissions mitigation scenarios. Synapse performed modeling for the three primary energy sectors: transportation, buildings, and electricity. The results of the modeling were used to develop recommendations for the Cape Cod Climate Action Plan.

On behalf of Energy Outreach Colorado, Synapse submitted testimony regarding the impact of Public Service Company of Colorado's proposal to eliminate inclining block rates (IBR). Synapse's analysis revealed that inclining block rates are more cost-reflective than flat rates, and that eliminating IBR would have disproportionately negative impacts on low-income customers, as these customers tend to have lower usage than average. Further, Synapse's testimony supported empowering customers to better manage their electricity bills by providing customers with cost-reflective rate options. 

Synapse provided the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) with technical assistance in evaluating the likely impacts on Maryland ratepayers from pursuing the fixed resource requirement (FRR) alternative to continued participation in PJM's capacity market. The FRR alternative is the main avenue for states to avoid the negative impacts of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) controversial minimum offer price rule (MOPR) order on the development of renewable resources and the cost to achieve state clean energy goals.

As part of this work, Synapse developed a three-step framework for assessing the potential impacts of the FRR alternative. The framework was proposed to evaluate the economic and financial trade-offs between the FRR alternative and continued participation in PJM's capacity market and the state regulatory and legislative actions that may be necessary to support pursuit of the FRR alternative. This included evaluating the potential benefits and costs to Maryland ratepayers from pursuit of the FRR alternative and an assessment of the legislative and regulatory actions necessary to pursue the FRR option if the benefits are determined to exceed the costs. As part of this effort, Synapse conducted in-depth analysis on the benefits and costs associated with FRR, including changes in cost to meet clean energy goals, changes in capacity procurement quantities, and market power impacts.

Synapse provided expert testimony and analysis to support the Sierra Club in reviewing the Southwestern Electric Power Company’s (SWEPCO) fuel cost reconciliation application before the Texas Public Utility Commission for the time period March 2017 through December 2019. Synapse testimony focused on evaluating the Company’s unit commitment practices at its three coal-fired power plants (Flint Creek, Welsh, and Turk) and two lignite-fired power plants (Pirkey and Dolet Hills). We also evaluated the Company’s management of its lignite mining contract at Dolet Hills Mine.

We found that SWEPCO’s lignite units had some of the highest fuel costs among all solid fuel units in the US during this time. We also found that SWEPCO regularly self-committed its coal and lignite plants into the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) market, and as a result incurred substantial net losses. These losses were avoidable through better commitment practices. Finally, we found that SWEPCO imprudently incurred over $170 million at the Oxbow Mine for assets and infrastructure that were not fully used or useful, and now seeks to pass those costs on to its ratepayers.

We recommend that the Commission disallow net operational losses incurred during specific events we identified, as a result of the Company’s uneconomic commitment practices. These losses were avoidable if the units were instead committed into the market with an economic commitment status. We also recommended that the Commission disallow $2.8 million in costs related to the failed expansion of the Oxbow Mine that were incurred and billed to SWEPCO customers during this time period. Finally, we recommend that SWEPCO be required to provide detailed reporting on its daily unit commitment practices.

The 100PercentCT Project developed by People’s Action for Clean Energy (PACE) supports the transition to a clean energy economy in Connecticut. The project’s primary function is to conduct energy analyses to help inform individual towns and the State of Connecticut about opportunities to achieve 100 percent renewable energy for the buildings and transportation sectors. PACE developed the Town Energy Analysis model—an in-house, techno-economic tool—to inventory energy use and emissions in Connecticut towns and evaluate strategies to transition to renewable energy.

Synapse performed an in-depth review of PACE’s Town Energy Analysis model to identify opportunities to improve upon and expand the model. We evaluated the modeling methods, sectors, and scope included in the energy analysis, as well as the inputs and data sources used. We compared PACE’s model alongside 10 publicly available energy and climate modeling tools to identify opportunities to align the Town Energy Analysis model with current best practices in energy and greenhouse gas accounting and in identification of mitigation opportunities.

Synapse issued a report to PACE presenting our review of the Town Energy Analysis model. First, our report summarizes the energy and climate modeling tools used to establish current energy and climate planning best practices for analytical models. Next, we validate PACE’s model and identify specific changes to improve key data, inputs, methods, and assumptions used in the model. We conclude by identifying additional modeling approaches, clean energy strategies, market segments, and energy impacts for the possible inclusion within PACE’s Town Energy Analysis model.

The FERC approved the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) in 2017. Project owners Duke and Dominion filed a certificate for a construction extension with FERC on June 16, 2020. On behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, Synapse assessed the projected demand for new gas used for electric generation, estimating the “maximum demand for new gas” on a peak winter day in Dominion’s and Duke’s service territories. We examined public IRPs, new policies in Virginia and North Carolina that will lower CO2 emissions in the electric sector, and public documents related to the utilities’ internal emission reduction goals. We used that data to build spreadsheet models to assess maximum future gas demand on a winter peak day. Our analysis demonstrates that the need for new gas-fired generating resources originally anticipated by Duke and Dominion has not and will not materialize, thus negating the utilities’ claimed need for the ACP.

Synapse assisted the Sierra Club with evaluating Dominion’s 2020 Virginia IRP and modeling alternative scenarios demonstrating the cost effectiveness of clean energy generation and coal retirements. Synapse modeled an optimized Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) compliant scenario in EnCompass that resulted in lower emissions and lower costs than Dominion’s preferred plan. Rachel Wilson sponsored testimony describing how the Synapse scenario eliminated unnecessary gas capacity additions that Dominion fixed in its modeling, and showed that accelerating retirements of certain coal units by increasing solar generation capacity would save ratepayers billions of dollars. In addition, Synapse reviewed Dominion’s position regarding the PJM Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) and the Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) alternative to participating in the PJM capacity market under the MOPR. Jason Frost sponsored testimony describing how the MOPR will increase the costs of meeting state clean energy goals and require Dominion to retain unnecessary legacy fossil fuel powered generation by not counting renewable capacity. Mr. Frost’s testimony also discusses how the FRR presents a way to avoid the negative impacts of the MOPR, and can reduce consumer costs by avoiding the need to pay for legacy fossil fuel capacity that is no longer needed.

The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel retained Synapse to provide expert witness testimony on the benefit-cost analysis Baltimore Gas and Electric Company filed for its electric vehicle program portfolio as part of its Multi‐Year Plan. Synapse was also retained by OPC to respond to a benefit-cost analysis on the Potomac Electric Power Company's electric vehicle programs.

Synapse worked on behalf of Labor Network for Sustainability to analyze the economic benefits of improving energy, water, and transportation infrastructure in Massachusetts through increased state, municipal, and public investment. First, we identified spending gaps between existing investment plans for these three sectors and the level of investment needed to bring the sectors to a state of good repair. We used infrastructure needs reports, gap analysis studies, and state policy goals to identify the spending gaps. Next, we calculated the employment impacts of improving this infrastructure through increased investment between 2020 and 2030. We used IMPLAN, an industry-standard job impact model, to convert annual spending levels into annual job creation. We produced a final report summarizing the results for all three sectors as well as a selected set of city-specific case studies.

E4TheFuture retained Synapse to investigate whether New England is well-suited to handle the electrification transformation within the next decade. Electrification is a key strategy to reducing emissions and shifting away from fossil fuel reliance. Heat pumps and electric vehicles have gained traction as two technologies that will help that vision become a reality. Up until now, implementation has been fairly slow, but a combination of forward-looking policies and technology improvements may change that. Our question is – does increased electrification pose a threat to New England’s electric grid within the next decade? Synapse framed its' analysis in the context of ISO New England’s 2020 Capacity, Energy, Load, and Transmission forecast. Synapse found that policymakers can set an ambitious path to meet climate goals without significant disruption to the electric grid, by incorporating updated EV charging rates and controls. By continuing to offer efficiency programs, states can mitigate or even eliminate grid impacts due to electrification.

On behalf of the Sierra Club, Synapse is providing expert comments and analysis in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s investigation into the Self Scheduling and Self-Commitment practices of the state’s Coal-fired power plants.

In 2020, Synapse evaluated the unit commitment and dispatch practices of two Minnesota Utility companies: Minnesota Power’s two Boswell units and Otter Tail Power’s Big Stone and Coyote units.

Based on data and information submitted as part of the Companies’ 2020 Annual Compliance Filings, we found that both Otter Tail Power and Minnesota Power uneconomically self-committed and often appeared to have uneconomically self-scheduled their coal units throughout the 2020 reporting periods. Both utilities incurred significant losses (relative to the market price of energy) based on their unit commitment and dispatch decision-making processes. Otter Tail Power’s losses resulting from its commitment and dispatch practices were driven in large part by two factors:

(1) the Company’s decision to enter into a long-term fuel contract for Coyote at the mine that serves the plant (co-located with the mine) that designates a significant portion of its fuel costs as fixed costs; and

(2) the joint ownership structure and dual market operation of both the Big Stone and Coyote plants.

In 2021, Synapse evaluated Otter Tail Power’s units, focusing on the long-term coal contract and joint ownership structure issues outlined above. We evaluated the contract buy-out cost for Otter Tail Power to exit the coal contract at Coyote, and whether ratepayers would be better served by exiting the contract or continuing to operate the unit at a loss. We also reviewed actions the Company has taken to enable economic commitment at Big Stone, its plans to do the same at Coyote, and the challenges posed to attempting to implement fully economic operations based on the joint market and joint ownership at both plants.

Synapse provided expert witness testimony and analysis to Sierra Club for Southwestern Public Service Company's (SPS) 2019 rate case in the states of New Mexico and Texas. The case focused on the retirement date for the Tolk Plant, which the Company was requesting be moved up based on a water shortage in the region that would limit the ability for SPS to continue economically operating the plant year-round through its current retirement date. Synapse’s testimony and analysis focused on both the recent historical and future projected economic performance of Tolk under the Company’s proposed seasonal operations plan for the plant moving forward. We also evaluated the Harrington Coal-fired Power Plant. We found that both plants are likely to lose money going forward relative to alternatives and the market, and therefore SPS should develop a plan to retire both plants. SPS has been required to update its analysis on the future operation of the Tolk Power Station.

Synapse was retained by the Sierra Club to evaluate the prudence of coal combustion residuals and effluent limitation guidelines retrofits at the Victor Daniel coal-fired power plant in Mississippi in light of ongoing and future costs and future environmental risk.