Notice2021-12200
Modernizing Electricity Market Design; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 10, 2021
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30929-30930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12200]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD21-10-000]
Modernizing Electricity Market Design; Notice Inviting Post-
Technical Conference Comments
On May 25, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) convened a technical conference to discuss resource
adequacy, state policies and ISO-New England Inc.'s markets.
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical
conference and identified in the Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference issued May 17, 2021. For reference, the questions included
in the Supplemental Notice are included below. Commenters need not
answer all of the questions but are encouraged to organize responses
using the numbering and order in the below questions. Commenters are
also invited to reference material previously filed in this docket but
are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material.
Comments are due 45 days from the date of this Notice.
Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\1\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp">http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp</a>. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f4f7e0f1fddcdedbdcd7e1c7c2c2ddc0c6f2d4d7c0d19cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12545740515d7c7e7b7c77416762627d606652747760713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about this Notice, please contact: David
Rosner (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8479, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5f1d4c3dcd19be7dac6dbd0c7f5d3d0c7d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e1a3f28373a700c312d303b2c1e383b2c3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
Meghan O'Brien (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-6137, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1ac848689808fcfaec6a39388848fa187849382cf868e97">Meghan.O'<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c082b2a9a5ae80a6a5b2a3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.
Dated: June 4, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment
1. Relationship Between State Policies and ISO New England Inc.'s
Markets
a. In October 2020, the New England States Committee on Electricity
(NESCOE) released a vision statement that called for ISO-NE to provide
an appropriate level of state involvement in wholesale market design
and implementation.\2\ Please provide an update on the discussions in
the region since the vision statement was released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NESCOE, New England States' Vision for a Clean, Affordable,
and Reliable 21st Century Regional Electric Grid, <a href="http://nescoe.com/resource-center/vision-stmt-oct2020/">http://nescoe.com/resource-center/vision-stmt-oct2020/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Please explain how states are currently involved in market
design and implementation processes. How are states' perspectives
considered in these processes? How is information shared with states
related to these processes? What is the appropriate role for New
England states with respect to ISO-NE capacity market reforms?
c. New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), in coordination with NESCOE and
ISO-NE representatives, launched the ``New England's Future Grid
Initiative'' in two parallel processes to (1) define and assess the
future state of the region's power system; and (2) explore and evaluate
potential market frameworks that could be pursued to accommodate state
policies focused on decarbonization.\3\ What is the current status of
each of these stakeholder processes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ISO-NE, New England's Future Grid Initiative Key Project,
<a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/key-projects/new-englands-future-grid-initiative-key-project/">https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/key-projects/new-englands-future-grid-initiative-key-project/</a>. See also Dr. Frank Felder, NEPOOL's
Pathways to the Future Grid Process Project Report n.1 (Jan. 2021),
<a href="https://nepool.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NPC_20210107_Felder_Report_on_Pathways_rev1.pdf">https://nepool.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NPC_20210107_Felder_Report_on_Pathways_rev1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Many New England states have established long-term policy goals
and/or statutory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
increase clean energy generation. Consistent with these goals, several
states have instituted programs to promote the development of renewable
energy resources and to retain existing zero-emitting generation
resources. How do the current ISO-NE market rules affect implementation
of existing or proposed state policies? If states have differing policy
goals, how should these be accommodated in the ISO-NE capacity market?
How do one state's actions to shape the resource mix affect other
states? Should such effects be addressed, and if so, how?
e. Is ISO-NE's existing capacity market design, including the
Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (CASPR) framework
effective in ensuring resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
Why or why not? Is it compatible with achieving New England states'
policies? Given the small quantity of capacity cleared through the
substitution auction, is CASPR achieving its goals? Is CASPR's current
design durable? Why, or why not?
2. Short-Term Options and Complementary Potential Market Changes To
Accommodate State Policies in ISO-NE
a. Should ISO-NE's capacity market design, including the CASPR
framework, change to better accommodate state policies? If so, how?
b. As the resource mix in ISO-NE continues to evolve, what new
challenges are presented? Are the needs of the evolving resource mix
better addressed in the capacity market or the energy and ancillary
services markets, or are changes needed in both? Please explain.
c. At the March 23, 2021 technical conference,\4\ panelists
suggested that
[[Page 30930]]
both short-term and long-term reforms to aspects of ISO-NE's capacity,
energy, and ancillary services markets could be needed if CASPR and the
Offer Review Trigger Prices (ORTPs) are modified or eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference on Resource
Adequacy in the Evolving Electricity Sector, Docket No. AD21-10-000
(March 16, 2021), <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/AD21-10-000supp.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/AD21-10-000supp.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. What, if any, are the short-term and long-term challenges of
removing CASPR and the ORTPs from ISO-NE's capacity market? What market
design changes, if any, would be necessary to preserve the capacity
market's ability to ensure resource adequacy? If changes are necessary,
how quickly would ISO-NE need to implement short-term changes following
the removal of CASPR and ORTP?
ii. What other specific modifications to ISO-NE's capacity market
rules may be necessary? For example, should capacity accreditation
rules for various resource types, the shape of the capacity market
demand curve, the net cost of new entry estimates, or mechanisms to
ensure fuel security, among others, be revised and if so why, and how?
Approximately how long would it take ISO-NE and stakeholders to develop
and implement each additional needed reform? Assuming any such
modifications are necessary, which should be prioritized in the short-
term, and which should be pursued in the long-term?
iii. Some panelists expressed concerns that ORTPs are necessary to
prevent cost shifts between New England states. Please explain whether
and if so, how these cost shifts would occur if CASPR and the ORTPs
were eliminated. Is there a way to mitigate such an effect? Please
explain. Additionally, please discuss the extent to which certain
impacts are unavoidable in a regional market where participating
resources are located in multiple states.
3. Long-Term Options and Centralized Procurement of Clean Energy
a. What benefits would a centralized clean procurement mechanism in
ISO-NE provide to the ISO-NE states and the ISO-NE markets? What would
be the goals of such approaches and what are important design
considerations in developing any potential market mechanism? What are
the downsides of pursuing such constructs? What concerns regarding
potential undue discrimination may arise from implementing such new
market constructs, if any?
b. What are potential challenges to developing the new market
constructs discussed in this panel (e.g., would interstate compacts be
required)? How could those challenges be overcome? For example, New
England states have policies that support different types of resources
(e.g., offshore wind). Could a standard product be developed and
centrally procured in ISO-NE-administered markets to meet these diverse
state policy goals? Given the differences in state policies, is it
possible to define products that resources could provide (e.g., zero-
emission generation) and incorporate the procurement of those products
into Commission-jurisdictional markets?
c. Stakeholder discussions to date have focused on the Forward
Clean Energy Market and Integrated Clean Capacity Market as potential
frameworks. What are the key design features of these proposals? What
are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches?
d. Given that many state policy goals target electricity generation
(e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standards that target a percentage of
electric loads), would it be more effective to develop such a construct
within the energy and ancillary services markets?
[FR Doc. 2021-12200 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 10, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.