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
But FERC doesn’t penalize market participants based on narratives. FERC’s approach is to parse the rules (RTO tariffs in this case) and decide whether the conduct violated the FERC-approved document.
American Efficient’s (AE) business plan was to sell energy efficiency resources (EERs) into the capacity market. The company read the market rules and believed it found an opportunity.
It would sell the energy savings of appliances sold by leading retailers.
To do that, AE negotiated contracts with Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc to purchase their sales records of relevant appliances, LEDs, etc. Tucked into the contracts was a provision that entitled AE to the “Environmental Attributes” of the sold items.
I have two new pieces on transmission pricing for data centers. I explain that a 1990s FERC policy intended to spur competitive markets is being understood to prevent utilities from charging data centers for their full costs of service.
But FERC's policy is not so rigid. In my FERC comment, I explain how existing policy allow pricing structures that can better protect consumers than the status quo. elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filel…
The FERC comment responds to a recent @wiresgroup filing that I argue shows that utilities are raising costs for ratepayers when they upgrade transmission for data centers.
The White House's Ratepayer Protection Pledge is an empty promise unless there is transparency and accountability. If the Pledge is backed only by company press releases, then it's just "PR help" for the hyperscalers, as the President let slip.
But it's not too late for the Pledge to be meaningful.
The previous Meta-Entergy deal is not public. From what we know, ratepayers are paying fo $500M in transmission upgrades. Key benefit is that ratepayers might get a good deal on a used natural gas plant in 2042.
PJM has no authority over transmission line ratings. This is a governance and regulatory failure.
PJM is now technically able to use more accurate inputs in its transmission system models, but it might not actually be doing so. It's up to the utilities.
Inaccurate line undervalue transmission capabilities, creating inflexible constraints in system models that cause higher energy prices, stifle new entry, and divert planning processes away from beneficial projects.
As the market monitor puts it, "PJM prices are extremely sensitive to transmission line ratings."
President makes FERC Commissioners stand and says FERC Commissioners "are the most powerful people in the country . . . I've had more people say, do you know FERC? I've learned so much about FERC."
Mike Johnson is here and speaking for some reason. Calls the "pledge . . . an idea whose time has come." It responds to "misinformation."