Comments on the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) proposed grid resiliency rule from an assortment of state companies, commerce teams, environmental organizations, and arranged market entities flooded the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) docket earlier than the tight three-week timeframe expired Oct. 23.

The DOE’s “Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule” proposed on Sept. 29 directs FERC—an impartial regulatory authorities company that’s formally organized as a part of the DOE—to train its authority below sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and require that impartial system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) “set up simply and cheap charges for wholesale electrical energy gross sales” for energy vegetation that present “reliability and resiliency attributes.”

The DOE directed FERC to take motion on the rule inside 60 days, or impose an interim remaining rule instantly—with a provision for “later modifications” after a 45-day public remark interval. The rule additionally requires that ISOs and RTOs submit a compliance submitting inside 15 days after the DOE finalizes the rule.

While a majority of states remained silent on the controversial concern, others had rather a lot to say. This infographic beneath exhibits how the states that submitted feedback in FERC’s Docket RM18-1 noticed the problem.

California*: Opposes

While the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of California filed a discover of intervention on Oct. 13, the California legal professional basic additionally filed a movement to intervene on Oct. 20, citing the authority given to it by the legislature to step into administrative proceedings which will have the impact of “impairing, polluting, or destroying pure assets” of California. On Oct. 23, the PUC filed feedback calling on FERC to reject the rule “as a result of it quantities to poorly reasoned choice making” and suffers from “deadly authorized deficiencies.”

Among these deficiencies, it mentioned, are that the rule is bigoted and capricious, it encroaches on state authority, it fails to fulfill FERC’s burden of proof below Section 206 of the FPA, and it’s “unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory” as a result of it specifies that service provider coal-fired and nuclear vegetation should be added to ISO and RTO system wants. California’s Gov. Jerry Brown additionally opposed the rule in feedback filed on Oct. 23. “If the vitality disaster has taught us something, it’s that diversification of assets is crucial for resiliency and reliability planning,” he mentioned.

Colorado: No statewide remark

Colorado’s state companies don’t appear to have submitted a remark, however the metropolis of Aspen, which owns the Aspen Electric Utility, urged FERC to not undertake the rule, saying it doesn’t tackle the wants of the excellent vitality wants of the longer term. Coal, it mentioned, is in a interval of transition, going through a “good storm” of ageing infrastructure, environmental considerations, and cheaper vitality alternate options.

Connecticut*: Opposes

While a part of a multi-state submitting opposing the rule (*see beneath), Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen individually mentioned the rule might require new tariffs requiring operators of organized markets to make sure that sure reliability and resiliency attributes are totally valued, and will have a dramatic impact on energy costs in New England. The state’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and different companies additionally opposed the rule in their very own submitting, saying it doesn’t give anybody the significant alternative to remark, and that it infringes upon state jurisdiction over technology amenities.

Delaware: Opposes

The Delaware Public Service Commission and different state companies mentioned the rule is “poor in so many ways in which we concern it can have the numerous unintended penalties that can adversely have an effect on present aggressive vitality markets.”

Illinois*: Opposes with reservations

Though a part of a multi-state submitting* opposing the rule, Illinois is certainly one of two states (together with New York) that has created a zero-emission commonplace to compensate nuclear energy vegetation for his or her…





Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here