,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Here's a good thread on yesterday's NYT article about the La Paloma generating plant in CA, and the complaint they filed that FERC swiftly and unanimously rejected. In addition to @MilesFarmer's excellent analysis, here is my own quick thread. 1/?
The comparison to FERC's order proposing to impose minimum offer prices on renewables and some nuclear in PJM is tenuous at best, because that order's rationale (which I strongly disagree with) is based on PJM's centralized capacity market design. 2/?
The supposed "price suppression" FERC claims occurs in PJM simply can't occur under CAISO's market design. As Miles explains, CAISO doesn't have a centralized capacity market, and FERC has never suggested it will impose one. In fact, La Paloma basically asked FERC to do that. 3/?
FERC declined to do so. Yes, the composition of FERC has changed. But FERC's newest member has emphasized time and again that he is guided by the facts and the law. That's important, because the facts in CAISO are completely different from the facts in PJM. 4/?
The different facts are why FERC reached different results. Rehearing is always a long shot, but the factual differences make it even more of a long shot that FERC will grant rehearing to import its PJM rationale to CAISO (and would make any grant of reh'g legally suspect). 5/?
Respectfully, I think the NYT missed this imp dynamic. La Paloma says very little about what FERC's motives may be vis-a-vis California and western clean energy policies. If anything, FERC's strong rejection of the complaint shows it is avoiding interfering in these policies. 6/6
