The Bonneville Power Administration tamped down expectations that it is all in on SPP’s Markets+, clarifying in a recent letter to lawmakers representing Oregon and Washington that it’s still weighing the pros and cons of joining a day-ahead market.
In a Dec. 31 letter publicly released by the agency Jan. 7, BPA Administrator John Hairston said it’s possible in the short term that BPA will not join a day-ahead market and “continue to market surplus power and make short-term purchases through bilateral trading and optimize real-time activity in [CAISO’s Western Energy Imbalance Market].”
“In the long term, we are concerned, however, that most of our potential trading partners will be in a day-ahead market themselves and create challenges in relying on a bilateral market,” Hairston added. “We will continue to evaluate the development of Western electric markets to assess the potential costs and benefits of participation.”
Hairston also reiterated that BPA would only join a day-ahead market if the market’s framework is compatible with the agency’s statutory obligations and other commitments, including environmental, reliability and affordability.
Hairston’s comments came after Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) urged in a Dec.13 letter that the federal power marketing administration carefully weigh its choice between SPP’s Markets+ and CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM).
Markets+ and EDAM are both vying for participants as they develop their market frameworks, with BPA leaning toward Markets+. Agency staff have recommended that BPA join Markets+, citing the market’s governance framework, which BPA believes provides greater independence from California state influence compared with the EDAM option.
However, the senators contended that the agency has failed to make a business case for Markets+, citing a BPA-commissioned study by consulting firm Environmental and Energy Economics.
That study, which relied on production cost analyses, found BPA would realize the most significant net economic benefits — $251 million in 2026 declining to $147 million in 2035 — in a “Westwide Market” scenario that includes California.
In his most recent letter, Hairston echoed arguments he’s made in correspondence with Seattle City Light, telling senators the study’s results “should be viewed with some skepticism” as the Western Interconnection will likely have two day-ahead markets, given that entities have signed agreements in favor of both Markets+ and EDAM.
Hairston added that numerous other elements not captured in production cost analyses can have an economic impact on expected benefits, such as governance structure, resource adequacy requirements, greenhouse gas accounting, fast-start pricing and scarcity pricing.
The Northwest region’s EDAM supporters have also criticized BPA’s apparent willingness to dole out $25 million to fund the Phase 2 implementation activities for Markets+ while declining to contribute $25,000 to the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative’s effort to bring independent governance to CAISO’s markets.
According to the senators’ letter, SPP has said the $25 million commitment is “essentially a market decision.” Hairston rebuffed this assertion in his most recent letter, saying “Phase 2 funding is not a commitment to joining Markets+; it is a commitment to continue funding development of the market.”
Similarly, he stated that BPA is, in fact, providing $25,000 to fund the Pathways Initiative but declined to make a public commitment before ensuring that the funding is “compatible with a different, much larger grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.”
Still, EDAM’s independence hinges on support from the California Legislature. Hairston noted, “It will be important to see if the Legislature will approve a full scope of independence.”
BPA will release a draft policy letter in March 2025 that will provide greater clarification on the agency’s final decision, according to the letter.