Search
`
November 1, 2024

Can PG&E Quit CAISO? FERC Wants to Know

By Hudson Sangree

Responding to a ruling from a federal appeals court, FERC last week instructed Pacific Gas and Electric and the California Public Utilities Commission to brief it on whether California law allows PG&E to quit CAISO.

The question may be academic; there’s no indication PG&E wants to leave CAISO. But FERC’s ruling on the matter could be worth $30 million a year to the company.

The reason: If PG&E can leave CAISO when it wants, the utility is entitled to continue collecting a 50-basis-point return on equity to remain part of the state’s organized electric market. If it can’t quit, then it could lose its yearly incentive adder.

PG&E CAISO CPUC FERC
| PG&E

Ruling in response to a challenge by the PUC, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directed FERC in January “to inquire into PG&E’s specific circumstances, i.e., whether it could unilaterally leave the Cal-ISO and thus whether an incentive adder could induce it to remain in the Cal-ISO.”

If PG&E legally must remain part of CAISO, then the company is being paid for something it is already required to do, the panel wrote.

In its Jan. 8 ruling, the appeals court found that FERC had “arbitrarily and capriciously” awarded PG&E the incentive adder without determining whether the company was being incentivized to stay in CAISO, as required by the commission’s regulations. The court remanded the case to FERC to make that determination.

In response, FERC on Monday asked PG&E and the CPUC to brief four issues, including whether California law requires PG&E to participate in CAISO and whether FERC must defer to the PUC’s interpretation of state law (ER14-2529-005).

The controversy over whether PG&E is entitled to the incentive payments has been going on for years.

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress amended the Federal Power Act to require FERC to provide financial incentives to induce utilities to join RTOs.

FERC responded in 2006 with Order 679, which provided adders to the rate of ROE for utilities that participate in transmission organizations. The bonuses were meant to give utilities an extra reason to join or remain members of RTOs, which are generally voluntary.

The PUC, however, argues that membership in CAISO is mandatory for the state’s three big investor-owned utilities, including PG&E.

PG&E contends participation is voluntary. For staying in CAISO, PG&E has requested and received adders under Order 679 since 2007.

The PUC protested in years past and again in November 2017, saying the $30 million adder was an “unjustified windfall” at the expense of California ratepayers. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District joined the protest.

FERC dismissed the objections, but on appeal the 9th Circuit judges ruled FERC commissioners had abused their authority.

The FERC commissioners, the court said, did not reasonably interpret Order 679 as justifying adders for remaining in a transmission organization. Instead, the commission created a generic adder in violation of the order, the judges ruled.

Order 679 says FERC “will approve, when justified, requests for ROE-based incentives for public utilities that join and/or continue to be a member of” RTOs.

“If all utilities that continued to be members of transmission organizations automatically qualified for incentive adders, the ‘when justified’ language would be surplusage,” the appellate panel wrote.

Briefs from PG&E and the PUC must be submitted to FERC by Sept. 19.

Democrats Call Out ‘Partisan’ Remarks by FERC Chief

By Rich Heidorn Jr.

The ranking members of the House and Senate energy committees sent FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre a letter Wednesday demanding answers on what they called “highly partisan political remarks” by FERC Chief of Staff Anthony Pugliese.

FERC Kevin McIntyre Anthony Pugliese
Pugliese | © RTO Insider

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) told McIntyre they were “deeply troubled” by Pugliese’s statement at an industry conference Aug. 7 that FERC is working with the Department of Energy and National Security Council on the Trump administration’s “ill-conceived plan to interfere with the operation of the nation’s wholesale electric markets. We believe this action would violate the requirement that FERC remain a neutral and unbiased decisionmaker.”

Pugliese, a former lobbyist in Pennsylvania’s capital, and an unsuccessful state legislative candidate there, joined FERC in August 2017 after a stint at the U.S. Department of Transportation as a member of President Trump’s so-called “shadow cabinet.”

Pallone and Cantwell expressed concern over Pugliese’s Aug. 7 remarks at a conference of the American Nuclear Society and his interview with the right-wing outlet Breitbart in July, saying they “call into question his impartiality and independence from political pressure. Left unchecked, we believe such statements must ultimately call into question the impartiality and independence of the commission itself.”

During the appearances, Pugliese praised Trump and criticized Democratic governors for blocking pipelines.

“You still have some parts of the country that are controlled by members of the Democratic Party that are determined to make sure that no infrastructure goes through their states,” Pugliese said in his interview on Breitbart.

“The president has done a tremendous job of knocking down barriers to allow the economy to grow and prosper,” Pugliese added.

At the American Nuclear Society conference, Pugliese seemed to identify himself as a member of the Trump administration, ignoring FERC’s traditional independence.

In introducing Pugliese, Donald Hoffman, CEO of Excel Services, described his job as coordinating “all the activities between the five commissioners, the staff and the White House. He is S2 at FERC, which means he is basically like the deputy director, and he’s responsible for coordinating all the activities and ensuring that the policy issues are discussed appropriately.”

FERC chiefs of staff serve at the pleasure of the chairman. But Pugliese joined FERC about the same time as interim Chair Neil Chatterjee, almost four months before McIntyre.

McIntyre seemed to mark his independence in January when he joined in a 5-0 vote rejecting Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to save at-risk coal and nuclear plants and instead opened a docket to consider resilience concerns. In June, however, Trump ordered Perry to save coal and nuclear plants under an obscure Korean War-era law. (See More Questions than Answers for FERC, RTOs on Bailout.)

At the conference, Pugliese said FERC was working to identify and preserve the most critical generating plants on the grid.

“We are currently working with the House and Senate — when I say we, I mean the administration, the White House and FERC — to consider what legislative changes may need to take place to make sure that we have the authority and the ability to do just that,” he said, according to audio of his remarks, which were shared with RTO Insider by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights.

Pugliese described having “the scary job of literally sitting in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility] all day and hearing about what all these … countries and nations and players are trying to do to us. And then, when we have a well populated part of the country having to import LNG from Russia because we can’t get infrastructure to provide American energy, that’s an area of concern.”

Pugliese made clear he supports payments to nuclear plants.

“We are working with DOD and DOE and NSC to identify the plants that we think would be absolutely critical to ensuring that not only our military bases but things like hospitals and other critical infrastructure are able to be maintained, regardless of what natural or man-made disasters might occur,” Pugliese said.

Pallone and Cantwell told McIntyre “you have the responsibility, as chairman, to safeguard the commission’s independence, its neutrality and its impartiality, and to uphold the professional conduct of the commission’s employees, and most especially those on your own personal staff.”

They asked the chairman to answer several questions, including whether Pugliese’s remarks “represent the views of the commission or any of its members” and whether the chairman had authorized Pugliese to “speak publicly about matters pending before the commission on behalf of the commission?”

Through a FERC spokesman, McIntyre and Pugliese declined to answer similar questions from RTO Insider on Aug. 13.

ferc anthony pugliese doe kevin mcintyre
FERC Chief of Staff Anthony Pugliese, left, and Bernard McNamee, center, head of DOE’s Office of Policy, made the case for coal and nuclear price supports at a breakfast meeting of the Consumer Energy Alliance on the sidelines of the NARUC Annual Meeting in Baltimore in November 2017. Michael Whatley, right, CEA’s executive vice president, moderated. McNamee has been named as a potential successor to former FERC Commissioner Robert Powelson. | © RTO Insider

With the departure of Commissioner Rob Powelson — a Republican who had been outspoken in opposition to out-of-market payments to generators — Trump has a chance to appoint a new commissioner who may be more pliant in response to his efforts to support coal and nuclear.

Politico reported earlier this month the president plans to nominate Bernard McNamee, head of DOE’s Office of Policy, who has previously lobbied for coal and nuclear subsidies. Last November, McNamee joined Pugliese at a breakfast meeting of the Consumer Energy Alliance on the sidelines of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Annual Meeting in Baltimore to make the case for coal and nuclear price supports. (See DOE, Pugliese Press ‘Baseload’ Rescue at NARUC.)

Despite its name, the CEA lists more than 230 corporate and business members, including utilities, chambers of commerce and trade groups. Watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute has described CEA as “a fossil fuel-funded advocacy group.”

SPP to Run Congestion Plan for CAISO, Others

By Tom Kleckner

SPP has ensured it will be one of the key players in the Western Interconnection through at least 2020, having agreed to administer a FERC tariff that mitigates congestion on transmission lines through controllable devices.

The RTO announced Tuesday it began administering the Western Interconnection Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (WIUFMP), effective Aug. 20, for six qualified owners and operators (QOO): CAISO, NorthWestern Energy, NV Energy, PacifiCorp, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and Western Area Power Administration.

SPP COO Carl Monroe said he is proud the QOOs recognized the RTO’s “experience and expertise” in reliability, grid management and “complex settlements processes.” The mitigation plan “comes at an exciting time as we’re looking for opportunities to bring SPP’s customer-focused business model to the west,” he said.

SPP has been working to add the Mountain West Transmission Group to its membership rolls since early 2017 and is also competing with CAISO to provide reliability coordination in the Western Interconnection. (See WAPA Formally Requests SPP’s RC Services.)

The WIUFMP defines ways to compensate QOOs for using phase-shifting transformers to manage loop flows in the Western Interconnection. The transformers change the effective resistance of an electric circuit or component to alternating current, such that collectively “the path of least resistance” is modified and certain loaded transmission facilities are relieved of real-time congestion.

Under the tariff, device owners are compensated for the availability and use of their equipment in managing grid congestion along qualified paths. As the plan’s administrator, SPP will collect fees from applicable entities — organizations that generate power, serve load and buy, sell or transport energy in the West — and make payments to device owners.

SPP said it anticipates it will distribute $3 million in the first year of its oversight. It will also collect, analyze and publicly report data on device usage and other aspects of the WIUFMP’s execution.

The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) had previously administered the mitigation plan, which has been under a FERC-approved tariff since March 2016 (ER16-193). WECC announced in late 2016 it would stop administering the WIUFMP, saying the function no longer fit with its responsibilities as a NERC regional entity.

SPP said it has not “specifically functioned” as a plan administrator for congestion mitigation but has previously performed reliability, settlements and other functions on contract for non-members.

“SPP is always interested in pursuing growth,” SPP spokesman Derek Wingfield told RTO Insider. “Everything we’re doing as the WIUFMP administrator leverages tools, staff, processes and expertise we already have in place. We consider there to be value in any opportunity like this one to use existing assets to bring value to new customers. Our hope is that they receive unparalleled service, we gain experience from the opportunity, and everyone benefits.”

Wingfield said SPP will charge an administrative fee “as allowed by the plan” and accrue other benefits as it does with its other contract services.

“Sometimes we benefit through learning, sometimes by opportunities to offset fixed costs, and sometimes we get to forge or strengthen relationships that may lead toward full SPP membership,” he said.

SPP has already formed a Qualified Owners and Operators stakeholder group, chaired by Tri-State Senior Manager of Transmission Systems Operations Keith Carman. CAISO’s Larry Bellnap, manager of balancing authority operations, is the group’s vice chair.

An Unscheduled Flow Committee, which supports the WIUFMP under SPP’s administration, reports to the QOO.

The QOO began meeting in late 2017, following WECC’s decision to end its role. The group selected SPP following a solicitation in November 2017.

SPP’s initial term as WIUFMP administrator will last through Dec. 31, 2020. It will automatically renew in successive one-year terms unless the QOOs choose another administrator.

MISO Adds Study to 2nd External Zone Filing

By Amanda Durish Cook

MISO is planning a study to ensure external resources bordering more than one of its local resource zones participate in only one zone in the RTO’s annual Planning Resource Auction.

The proposed electrical connectivity analysis will be included in MISO’s second attempt to win FERC approval to create external resource zones in its capacity auction. It will study the links maintained by external resources bordering more than one MISO local resource zone, MISO staff said during an Aug. 22 special conference call of the Resource Adequacy Subcommittee.

FERC rejected MISO’s first filing for external zones, taking issue with MISO’s proposal to allow external resources bordering two local resource zones to choose the zone in which they receive auction credits. The commission also rejected MISO’s plan to make holders of evergreen supply contracts eligible for excess auction revenues indefinitely. (See MISO Promises External Capacity Zones After FERC Rejection.)

The electrical connectivity analysis will measure a generator’s impacts on tie lines, transmission facilities in each zone it borders and zonal transmission import and export constraints. After the study, the external resource will be assigned to the local resource zone with which it shares the greatest electrical connection.

external resource zones MISO
Rauch | © RTO Insider

MISO Director of Resource Adequacy Coordination Laura Rauch said the analysis will ensure external resources on the borders don’t receive local credit in more than one zone and market participants don’t have the ability to influence capacity prices.

Rauch said the proposed analysis will take into account the flow of capacity on the system.

“We do … agree with FERC that there should be more specificity for accreditation beyond line ratings,” she said.

Because MISO’s proposed analysis involves a unit-specific approach, Rauch said MISO isn’t allowed to publicly post accreditation results.

“The result will be confidential, so we want to make sure the process is as transparent as possible,” she said.

Customized Energy Solutions’ Ted Kuhn asked if MISO could simply “scrub the names” and release results of the analysis. Rauch said stakeholders might still be able to identify the units based on which transmission lines MISO studied, though she said MISO will evaluate what it could release without revealing confidential information.

MISO plans to refile its external zone proposal with FERC by Aug. 31, hoping for approval sometime in October. Rauch said the timing of the filing should give MISO enough time before deadlines start approaching for the 2019/20 planning year capacity auction.

2-Year Cutoff

MISO’s refiling will also seek to prohibit external resources with historic supply contracts containing evergreen extension options from receiving excess auction revenues after the original contract term is up. MISO’s first filing allowed holders of such evergreen contracts to receive hedges for price separation in perpetuity. FERC said such a rule would have allowed some generation owners to avoid locational price signals indefinitely.

Now, instead of continuously renewing their eligibility, evergreen contract holders will be eligible for hedges until the end of the original term of the agreement or for two years, whichever is longer.

Rauch said the edited provision will also apply to evergreen contract holders who already have a contract extension in place.

“The idea is you get two years to be able to adjust and adapt,” Rauch said.

PNM Seeks to Join Energy Imbalance Market

By Hudson Sangree

New Mexico’s largest utility has requested state regulators’ permission to join the Western Energy Imbalance Market, officials announced Wednesday.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) has applied to join the EIM by 2021, Mark Rothleder, the EIM’s vice president of market quality and renewable integration, told the market’s Governing Body during its meeting in Denver.

PNM, which serves about 510,000 electricity customers in the state, still needs approval from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Rothleder said.

The Governing Body greeted the announcement as good news. If PNM’s request to join the EIM is approved, it could give California and other states access to New Mexico’s wind and solar resources, and New Mexico could draw on California’s solar output during peak usage hours.

Wind far in New Mexico | Public Service of New Mexico

Part of the EIM’s mission is to trade renewable energy between states that generate and use it at different times.

California’s solar energy output reaches its peak midday, during a time of low in-state consumption, while solar farms in New Mexico and Arizona come online earlier, some in time to meet California’s high morning demand for electricity. Wind farms in New Mexico and Wyoming ramp up later in the day, when Californians get home and turn on their lights and TVs.

PNM owns or jointly owns 3,200 miles of electric transmission. It owns, leases or has power purchase agreements for about 2,580 MW of generation, dominated by gas (33%), coal (30%) and nuclear (16%). Its wind capacity totals 300 MW (12%) with solar at 117 MW (5%).

“Having cost-effective electricity available to immediately back up [intermittent] renewable energy in real time supports reliability and also ensures our renewables are used to their fullest potential,” Thomas Fallgren, PNM’s vice president of generation, told the Associated Press on Wednesday.

CAISO started the EIM in 2014, and its members have realized more than $400 million in benefits, including more than $71 million during the second quarter of 2018. (See EIM Benefits Surge to $71.2M in Q2.)

PNM would be the first New Mexico utility to join the EIM.

Major utilities in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming are already members. Idaho Power and Powerex joined this year.

With Gov. Jerry Brown’s support, CAISO also is pushing to become an RTO for the Western states. A bill to advance the change, AB 813, is pending in the legislature, but its fate is uncertain. It must be delivered to Brown before lawmakers end their current session Aug. 31. (See CAISO Regionalization Bill Cast on Uncertain Course.)

Diablo Canyon Shutdown Bill Goes to Brown

By Hudson Sangree

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A measure to replace generating capacity and limit economic disruption caused by the retirement of the state’s last nuclear power plant is headed to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

Pacific Gas and Electric’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which sits on a scenic stretch of coastline south of Big Sur, generates nearly a tenth of California’s in-state power and 20% of the utility’s needs.

Diablo Canyon Jerry Brown
Diablo Canyon | PGE

Senate Bill 1090, which passed the State Assembly by 67-1 on Aug. 20, would require Diablo Canyon’s output to be replaced with “a portfolio of greenhouse-gas-free resources,” the first measure of its kind in California.

The bill seeks to avoid a spike in emissions, which occurred after the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California closed in 2013 and fossil-fuel burning plants were brought online to compensate.

The measure directs the Public Utilities Commission to approve full funding for measures to lessen the impact on the local economy and to retain skilled workers until the plant is retired in 2025, when its last Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating license expires. The PUC approved PG&E’s application to retire the plant in January but balked at providing $85 million in community-impact funds and millions more for job retention and retraining, asking the legislature for guidance.

The bill, which cleared the State Senate 31-4 in May, was co-authored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning, a Democrat, and Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham, a Republican, both of whom represent districts surrounding Diablo Canyon.

“I am hopeful that Gov. Brown will also be supportive of the safe, reliable and carefully planned retirement of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and sign SB 1090,” Monning said in a statement. “The bill is imperative to the local economy, the state’s energy grid and the region.”

An agreement reached in 2016 among PG&E and environmental and labor groups initially laid out plans for the plant’s closure.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which helped negotiate the agreement, lauded the bill’s passage.

“The package of policies included in SB 1090 offers a model for the phaseout of aging power plants with clean, increasingly less expensive energy while providing a just transition for workers and communities affected by the shutdown,” NRDC’s western energy director, Peter Miller, wrote in blog post Monday.

A spokeswoman for Monning said she had “no idea … one way or another” whether Brown will sign the bill.

Brown, who has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the measure, declined to comment on his position. “We typically do not weigh in on pending legislation,” Deputy Press Secretary Brian Ferguson told RTO Insider.

MISO Running 5-Minute Settlements on New Platform

By Amanda Durish Cook

MISO’s replacement of its market settlements platform is complete, with the RTO now settling at five-minute intervals.

The RTO reported “smooth and uneventful launches” for both the new platform and settlement time. Officials said the $10.3 million platform replacement is yielding more value than originally expected, though MISO is collecting more financial data through the end of the year before it announces the savings.

MISO rolled out five-minute settlements for weekly billing last month, later than most RTOs/ISOs, owing to extra time needed to replace its settlements platform and test the new program with stakeholders. (See MISO Wins Delay on 5-Minute Settlement Roll-Out.) Last year, the RTO billed $27 billion worth of market-based charges on an hourly basis to more than 450 market participants for the day-ahead market, real-time market, financial transmission rights and its resource adequacy construct.

MISO market platform five-minute settlements
McFarlane | © RTO Insider

Executive Director of Market Operations Shawn McFarlane told the Technology Committee of the Board of Directors on Aug. 21 that many settlements corrections are now automated, freeing up settlement analysts’ time. The time to make a settlement recalculation after correcting data has dropped to about 10 minutes from four hours.

“We’ve got some great results,” Kevin Caringer, executive director of MISO’s IT team, told board members.

The new settlements platform also allowed MISO to implement five-minute intervals in about three months, versus the originally estimated nine months, McFarlane said. He added that the RTO is also expected to spend less time coding to make changes on the new settlements system. He said coding changes will likely be necessary as MISO continues its multiyear project to entirely replace its market platform. (See MISO Platform Replacement Risks Delay, Budget Overrun.)

McFarlane said MISO sent market participants sample statements several times during testing of the new interval time, receiving input to correct issues before the program went live.

“This is an important step forward for MISO … that improves the efficiency of our market operations and ensures pricing transparency for the energy being delivered in real time,” McFarlane said.

The committee praised management for better-than-expected results.

“It’s very impressive to see a project of this magnitude come to light,” Director Theresa Wise said.

“Delaying the implementation so that we were in lockstep with stakeholders was a very good decision,” Director Baljit Dail said.

MISO also plans to replace its transmission settlements system in 2019. The system financially settles transmission customers’ use of the transmission system in monthly bills.

NY Stakeholders Debate Carbon Charges for REC Resources

By Michael Kuser

RENSSELAER, N.Y. — A NYISO proposal to disqualify some holders of renewable energy credit (REC) contracts from getting paid carbon charges risks undermining the state’s energy market, stakeholders heard on Monday.

In July, the ISO proposed that renewable generators holding REC contracts signed on or before Jan. 1, 2020, be ineligible to collect the carbon pricing portion of wholesale market energy prices. (See NY Sets Carbon Pricing Timeline, Reviews Progress.)

| Institute for Local Self-Reliance

“This would be the first time the NYISO has taken an action that goes against existing contracts,” said Mark Reeder, representing the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY), which promotes renewables and energy efficiency. “It will increase uncertainty and decrease the willingness of future investors to invest in New York. It’s not very helpful in that regard.”

Reeder delivered a presentation on the topic Aug. 20 to the Integrating Public Policy Task Force (IPPTF), the group exploring how to incorporate the cost of CO2 emissions into the ISO’s markets to support the state’s nuclear plants.

NYISO’s proposal aims to limit customer impacts of the carbon charge by helping reduce or eliminate what it terms “double payments” to renewable resources. According to Reeder, that tells investors that it’s financially risky to develop energy resources that lower carbon emissions in New York. All carbon-free generators should receive the full market energy price, including carbon price effects, he said.

Reeder said the ISO should defer to the state’s Public Service Commission because double payments are a matter of public policy, not market design. REC contracts for 2019 solicitations and beyond should align with the indexed price approach that the PSC approved for offshore wind REC contracts (ORECs), he said. (See NYPSC: Offshore Wind ‘Ready for Prime Time’.)

The task force should separately estimate the consumer impacts of receiving the carbon price for existing REC contract holders, nuclear plants under the zero-emission credits regime, combined cycle gas turbines and state-owned hydro generation, Reeder said.

Couch White attorney Michael Mager, who represents Multiple Intervenors, a coalition of large industrial, commercial and institutional energy customers, said that, “given the amount of potential double payment at stake here, no one should take it as a given that carbon pricing moves forward absent this issue being resolved.”

Making consumers pay renewable developers higher energy prices to reflect carbon pricing, while also requiring them to pay the same developers for RECs for carbon-free generation attributes, is a clear double payment that must be addressed by NYISO or the PSC, he said.

Renewable developers have benefited from other rule changes, including the Clean Energy Standard and the PSC’s decision to offer three-year contracts to maintain the operation of existing renewable generation facilities (Case 17-E-0603), Mager said. “So these things happen all the time, and I would venture to say that the vast majority of rule changes in the last five to 10 years have been extremely favorable to renewable developers.”

Evaluating a Carbon Charge

Daymark Energy Advisors’ Marc Montalvo, representing the New York Department of State’s Utility Intervention Unit, delivered the preliminary results of a study evaluating NYISO’s proposed carbon charge in outcomes between two cases, a “status quo” case assuming state policies are met but the carbon charge is not implemented, and a case with the carbon charge. The study period included each year between 2020 and 2025, in addition to 2030 and 2035.

NYISO renewable energy credit carbon charge REC
Adding a carbon charge would result in higher emissions in New York through 2035, according to a study for the N.Y. Utility Intervention Unit. | Daymark Energy Advisors

The proposed carbon charge could result in slightly lower CO2 emissions in the Eastern Interconnection but higher emissions in New York, the study found. Low capacity prices and the large number of renewables being added to the system now may push prices too low to support new renewable entry within the study period, he said.

“Because so much new generation is being added, we thought it prudent to look at the proposal,” Montalvo said. “We used slightly different assumptions from the ISO’s; for example in the dynamic modeling of proposed border adjustments, which don’t capture likely changes in behavior.”

Several stakeholders questioned the usefulness of such a shuffling exercise, as the ISO’s straw proposal intends to be carbon-agnostic to resources outside New York: Imports would earn the locational-based marginal price but not the carbon adder; similarly, external loads would buy New York energy at the LBMP without paying the carbon charge.

NYISO renewable energy credit carbon charge REC
A study for the N.Y. Utility Intervention Unit projects a proposed carbon adder would push incremental average LBMPs in Eastern Zones (F‐K) about $16/MWh higher than Western Zones (A‐E) through 2035. | Daymark Energy Advisors

Montalvo said all the modeled regions add and take away resources based on policy and economic reasons, and “we’ve seen resources stick around for years for reasons impossible to know from the outside.”

He claimed that his group’s “very detailed model of the Eastern Interconnection” provides valuable insight into the effects of pricing carbon into New York’s wholesale electricity markets.

Monday’s meeting materials also included the task force charter as approved by the Business Issues Committee on Aug. 13. (See NYISO Business Issues Committee Briefs: Aug. 13, 2018.)

Stakeholders also had access to two comments submitted on the ISO’s carbon pricing straw proposal — one from “private retired citizen” Roger Caiazza, and another from Consolidated Edison. (See Stakeholders Annoyed by NYISO Carbon Price Draft.)

The task force next meets Aug. 27 at NYISO headquarters.

FERC Defends PJM Monitor’s Role in Reactive Service Case

By Rory D. Sweeney

FERC ruled Monday that PJM’s Independent Market Monitor can take part in negotiations over individual generators and doesn’t have to stick only to RTO-wide market issues, parting from a federal appeals court ruling on the Monitor’s role (ER18-1226).

FERC reactive power market monitor PJM
Bowring at FERC | © RTO Insider

The commission’s order came in response to an administrative law judge denying the Monitor’s request to participate in settlement discussions regarding PA Solar Park’s reactive service rate schedule.

The judge denied the IMM’s motion to intervene, citing a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in June blocking the Monitor from participating in an unsuccessful attempt by Duke Energy and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to recoup millions of dollars in “stranded” gas costs incurred during the 2014 polar vortex. (See Duke, ODEC Rebuffed on Polar Vortex Gas Refunds.)

In denying the motion and a subsequent appeal, the ALJ cited the D.C. Circuit’s characterization of the Monitor’s role as an “auditor” and said PJM’s Tariff provisions “support the notion that the [Monitor] should be limited to commission proceedings and technical conferences that address PJM and its markets at a macro level, but not discrete and individualized proceedings that are limited to specific parties and singular rate filings.”

The commission disagreed, remanding denial of the Monitor’s appeal back to the judge. FERC pointed out it initiated a process in 2014 to ensure resources in PJM’s footprint don’t receive payments for reactive power capability after the units have been deactivated. (See Impatient FERC Orders Immediate PJM Action on Reactive Power Payments to Retired Plants.)

Individual rate proceedings “are part of a broader, continuing effort by the commission to ensure that the rates for reactive power service within the PJM footprint are just and reasonable,” FERC said, adding the Monitor’s involvement would contribute to the “public interest.”

The ruling does not automatically admit the Monitor into the PA Solar Park case, however. Because the Monitor’s June 19 request to intervene was made after the filing deadline, FERC said the judge must rule on whether to admit the IMM anyway.

The Monitor said its filing was late because “no individual notice” of the matter was provided. It agreed to accept the record as it has developed to date and said its involvement would not prejudice existing parties in the proceeding.

More Gas, Hydro Push CAISO Prices Down in Q2

By Hudson Sangree

After an unusual surge in the first quarter, CAISO prices fell in the second quarter based on lower prices for natural gas and increased output from wind, hydroelectric and solar sources, the ISO’s Department of Market Monitoring told stakeholders Tuesday.

“Q1 prices were relatively high, while Q2 prices were relatively low,” said Amelia Blanke, CAISO’s manager of monitoring and reporting, during a call to discuss the department’s quarterly market report.

She noted prices are generally lower in the first two quarters and rise later in the year. This year was different, however. Q1 prices spiked because of the increased costs of natural gas, due to tight supply and high demand, and limited hydroelectric output, due to scarce precipitation.

Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada was only 54% of normal in early April, Blanke said.

Hydroelectric and renewable sources picked up in the second quarter, adding supply and helping to lower prices. Still, she said, hydroelectric is expected to remain below average this year.

| CAISO Department of Market Monitoring

“We are predicting relatively low hydro for this year, but not as low as we had at the peak of the drought in 2015,” Blanke said.

Also during Q2, north-to-south congestion in the day-ahead market continued to play a significant role, as it had in the first quarter, CAISO reported. It increased day-ahead prices in the San Diego Gas & Electric area by $3.54/MWh, Blanke noted.

Planned outages in Southern California were largely to blame for the congestion, she said.

“Outages in Southern California also caused congestion in the 15-minute market,” the CAISO report said. Congestion increased prices in the San Diego Gas & Electric area by about $4.95/MWh and in the Southern California Edison area by about $1.32/MWh, it said.

Another major development in Q2 was Idaho Power and Powerex joining the Western Energy Imbalance Market on April 4, Blanke said. The report noted prices in the Northwest region including the two companies are generally lower than those in the ISO and other EIM balancing areas because of their “abundant supply and limited transfer capability out of the region.”