On Friday, parties challenging FERC Order No. 841 filed non-binding statements of issues to be raised in the litigation. APPA, NRECA, EEI, and AMP (utilities) filed jointly, NARUC filed its own statement. The two filings are similar, but the utilities's filing is more succinct:
Issue 1: Did FERC act in excess of its statutory authority by deciding that it alone has jurisdiction to determine whether energy storage resources located on a distribution line or behind a retail meter may participate in wholesale electric markets?
Issue 2: Because of the impact of the Order 841 on the reliability, operations, and costs of local distribution systems and retail electric service, and because the FPA reserves these matters for state and local regulation [1/2]
[Issue 2, cont] did FERC act arbitrarily and capriciously, abuse its discretion, or otherwise act not in accordance with law by declining to give States an opportunity to opt out of the energy storage resource participation model created by the Order 841?
Issue 1 is about FERC's authority under federal law. Utilities are asking the court to draw a line that prohibits FERC from approving RTO tariffs that set rates for DERs, unless a local regulator permits DERs to participate in wholesale markets.
A FERC loss on Issue 1 will have repercussions for DER participation in wholesale markets. A broad ruling by the court could doom FERC's proposed DER aggregation rule. A narrower ruling might limit any future DER rule to states that are "wholesale DER friendly"
A FERC loss on Issue 2 would effectively remand distribution-level storage's participation back to FERC. FERC could issue an order that draws from the existing record to more fully explain why it's not providing an opt out. Or it could take comments on the issue first.
Whether or not there is an appetite at FERC to do either of those things will depend on who is sitting on the Commission. A loss on Issue 2 could have the effect of killing wholesale storage or DERs, even though it wouldn't change FERC's legal authority.
The challengers and FERC also jointly filed a proposed briefing schedule:
Correction to earlier Tweet: this lawsuit won't kill "wholesale storage." Order 841 is almost entirely safe and the only aspect challenged here is about distribution-level storage and whether FERC can require RTOs to accept bids from such resources.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rehearing requests about Colocation in PJM are coming in.
The utilities broadly oppose FERC's order that PJM offer new tiers of transmission service. Mostly, they argue FERC has not shown that existing rates are unjust and unreasonable or that the new service tiers will be J&R.
They also argue that the new service tiers are unduly discriminatory and "in tension" w Open Access transmission principles. And they argue FERC is infringing on state authority over retail service.
But there's a utility schism! Exelon and FirstEnergy sign on to these arguments. AEP, PSE&G, PPL, Duke, Dominion, Duquesne, ConEd, (others I'm forgetting) are not on this filing.
Pretty unusual to see a TO disagreement on such significant issues.
No. This map of retail electricity prices reflects generational trends. Of course, state + fed policies have price impacts. But stating that state clean energy policies are "why Blue States have the highest electricity prices" is wrong.
Here's a chart and map from the Federal Power Commission's 1964 National Power Survey, showing 1962 prices. Note higher prices in the Northeast and California. Not a perfect reflection of today but the NE trend has been persistent since at least 1962!
Here's a map I just made of 1990 retail prices from EIA data.
Light colors show less than 10% difference from US avg.
Dark colors show greater than 20% difference.
Medium colors are between 10 and 20 %
More action in PJM. 1. Last week, the utilities asked FERC for an extension in proposing how to comply with FERC's December order on co-location. Today, Constellation protests: the utilities "have long benefited by delaying existing large load co-location requests."
Why did the utilities ask for an extension and not PJM? Because FERC has ordered new rates for new tiers of transmission service and the utilities want to control what happens next.
Ordinarily, the utilities have the "right" to propose new rates (but not terms of service). But in this proceeding, where FERC found PJM's tariff is unjust and unreasonable, the utilities have no "rights" to control the process.
PJM's new load forecast confirms that when utilities/PUCs require data centers to sign long-term contracts they are protecting consumers from the risks of stranded costs but actually raising consumers' bills
A big risk for ratepayers is that their utility will spend billions on new infrastructure to support a new data center, but that new data center never comes online.
Many utilities/states now mitigate this risk by requiring the data center to sign a long-term deal w/ the utility.
In general, the long-term deal partially protects ratepayers. The data center commits to significant payments but often not for the full costs of all of the new infrastructure. Nevertheless, there's some protection for consumers...
According to the utility industry, today's FERC order about co-location violates PJM's First Amendment rights.
FERC tells PJM to file a report about other parties' capacity market proposals. That's unconstitutional compelled speech, according to the utilities.
Utilities take this position in opposition to FERC Order No. 1920, reforming transmission planning. They're asking the court to vacate Order No 1920, in part because it infringes on their Free Speech rights by demanding they file states' preferred cost allocation formula.
Maybe relevant for antitrust nerds?
Solicitor General sides against US Chamber and utility industry. "When a monopolist engages in a coordinated campaign to squelch competition, no circuit holds that each discrete aspect of the defendant’s conduct must be analyzed in isolation."