Modernizing Electricity Market Design; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, 30929-30930 [2021-12200]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Notices must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission’s Home Page (http:// www.ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission’s Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 502–8659. Dated: June 4, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–12204 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD21–10–000] khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Modernizing Electricity Market Design; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments On May 25, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) convened a technical conference to discuss resource adequacy, state policies and ISO-New England Inc.’s markets. All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments to address issues raised during the technical conference and identified in the Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued May 17, 2021. For reference, the questions included in the Supplemental Notice are included VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 below. Commenters need not answer all of the questions but are encouraged to organize responses using the numbering and order in the below questions. Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed in this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Comments are due 45 days from the date of this Notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.1 Instructions are available on the Commission’s website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, (202) 502–8659. For more information about this Notice, please contact: David Rosner (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8479, David.Rosner@ferc.gov. Meghan O’Brien (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6137, Meghan.O’Brien@ ferc.gov. Dated: June 4, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment 1. Relationship Between State Policies and ISO New England Inc.’s Markets a. In October 2020, the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) released a vision statement that called for ISO–NE to provide an appropriate level of state involvement in wholesale market design and implementation.2 Please provide an update on the discussions in the region since the vision statement was released. b. Please explain how states are currently involved in market design and implementation processes. How are states’ perspectives considered in these processes? How is information shared with states related to these processes? What is the appropriate role for New England states with respect to ISO–NE capacity market reforms? c. New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), in coordination with NESCOE and ISO–NE representatives, launched the ‘‘New England’s Future Grid Initiative’’ in two parallel 1 See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2020). New England States’ Vision for a Clean, Affordable, and Reliable 21st Century Regional Electric Grid, http://nescoe.com/resourcecenter/vision-stmt-oct2020/. 2 NESCOE, PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30929 processes to (1) define and assess the future state of the region’s power system; and (2) explore and evaluate potential market frameworks that could be pursued to accommodate state policies focused on decarbonization.3 What is the current status of each of these stakeholder processes? d. Many New England states have established long-term policy goals and/ or statutory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase clean energy generation. Consistent with these goals, several states have instituted programs to promote the development of renewable energy resources and to retain existing zeroemitting generation resources. How do the current ISO–NE market rules affect implementation of existing or proposed state policies? If states have differing policy goals, how should these be accommodated in the ISO–NE capacity market? How do one state’s actions to shape the resource mix affect other states? Should such effects be addressed, and if so, how? e. Is ISO–NE’s existing capacity market design, including the Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (CASPR) framework effective in ensuring resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates? Why or why not? Is it compatible with achieving New England states’ policies? Given the small quantity of capacity cleared through the substitution auction, is CASPR achieving its goals? Is CASPR’s current design durable? Why, or why not? 2. Short-Term Options and Complementary Potential Market Changes To Accommodate State Policies in ISO–NE a. Should ISO–NE’s capacity market design, including the CASPR framework, change to better accommodate state policies? If so, how? b. As the resource mix in ISO–NE continues to evolve, what new challenges are presented? Are the needs of the evolving resource mix better addressed in the capacity market or the energy and ancillary services markets, or are changes needed in both? Please explain. c. At the March 23, 2021 technical conference,4 panelists suggested that 3 ISO–NE, New England’s Future Grid Initiative Key Project, https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/ key-projects/new-englands-future-grid-initiativekey-project/. See also Dr. Frank Felder, NEPOOL’s Pathways to the Future Grid Process Project Report n.1 (Jan. 2021), https://nepool.com/wp-content/ uploads/2021/01/NPC_20210107_Felder_Report_ on_Pathways_rev1.pdf. 4 See Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference on Resource Adequacy in the Evolving E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM Continued 10JNN1 30930 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Notices khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES both short-term and long-term reforms to aspects of ISO–NE’s capacity, energy, and ancillary services markets could be needed if CASPR and the Offer Review Trigger Prices (ORTPs) are modified or eliminated. i. What, if any, are the short-term and long-term challenges of removing CASPR and the ORTPs from ISO–NE’s capacity market? What market design changes, if any, would be necessary to preserve the capacity market’s ability to ensure resource adequacy? If changes are necessary, how quickly would ISO– NE need to implement short-term changes following the removal of CASPR and ORTP? ii. What other specific modifications to ISO–NE’s capacity market rules may be necessary? For example, should capacity accreditation rules for various resource types, the shape of the capacity market demand curve, the net cost of new entry estimates, or mechanisms to ensure fuel security, among others, be revised and if so why, and how? Approximately how long would it take ISO–NE and stakeholders to develop and implement each additional needed reform? Assuming any such modifications are necessary, which should be prioritized in the short-term, and which should be pursued in the long-term? iii. Some panelists expressed concerns that ORTPs are necessary to prevent cost shifts between New England states. Please explain whether and if so, how these cost shifts would occur if CASPR and the ORTPs were eliminated. Is there a way to mitigate such an effect? Please explain. Additionally, please discuss the extent to which certain impacts are unavoidable in a regional market where participating resources are located in multiple states. 3. Long-Term Options and Centralized Procurement of Clean Energy a. What benefits would a centralized clean procurement mechanism in ISO– NE provide to the ISO–NE states and the ISO–NE markets? What would be the goals of such approaches and what are important design considerations in developing any potential market mechanism? What are the downsides of pursuing such constructs? What concerns regarding potential undue discrimination may arise from implementing such new market constructs, if any? b. What are potential challenges to developing the new market constructs Electricity Sector, Docket No. AD21–10–000 (March 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/ 2021-03/AD21-10-000supp.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 discussed in this panel (e.g., would interstate compacts be required)? How could those challenges be overcome? For example, New England states have policies that support different types of resources (e.g., offshore wind). Could a standard product be developed and centrally procured in ISO–NEadministered markets to meet these diverse state policy goals? Given the differences in state policies, is it possible to define products that resources could provide (e.g., zeroemission generation) and incorporate the procurement of those products into Commission-jurisdictional markets? c. Stakeholder discussions to date have focused on the Forward Clean Energy Market and Integrated Clean Capacity Market as potential frameworks. What are the key design features of these proposals? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches? d. Given that many state policy goals target electricity generation (e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standards that target a percentage of electric loads), would it be more effective to develop such a construct within the energy and ancillary services markets? [FR Doc. 2021–12200 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER21–2048–000] Sac County Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Sac County Wind, LLC’s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant’s request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 24, 2021. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http:// www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission’s Home Page (http:// www.ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission’s Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 502–8659. Dated: June 4, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–12205 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 8015–012] North Eastern Wisconsin Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application for Temporary Amendment and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM 10JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30929-30930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12200]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-10-000]


Modernizing Electricity Market Design; Notice Inviting Post-
Technical Conference Comments

    On May 25, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) convened a technical conference to discuss resource 
adequacy, state policies and ISO-New England Inc.'s markets.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical 
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical 
conference and identified in the Supplemental Notice of Technical 
Conference issued May 17, 2021. For reference, the questions included 
in the Supplemental Notice are included below. Commenters need not 
answer all of the questions but are encouraged to organize responses 
using the numbering and order in the below questions. Commenters are 
also invited to reference material previously filed in this docket but 
are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. 
Comments are due 45 days from the date of this Notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\1\ 
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact 
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact: David 
Rosner (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8479, [email protected].
    Meghan O'Brien (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6137, Meghan.O'[email protected].

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

1. Relationship Between State Policies and ISO New England Inc.'s 
Markets

    a. In October 2020, the New England States Committee on Electricity 
(NESCOE) released a vision statement that called for ISO-NE to provide 
an appropriate level of state involvement in wholesale market design 
and implementation.\2\ Please provide an update on the discussions in 
the region since the vision statement was released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NESCOE, New England States' Vision for a Clean, Affordable, 
and Reliable 21st Century Regional Electric Grid, http://nescoe.com/resource-center/vision-stmt-oct2020/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Please explain how states are currently involved in market 
design and implementation processes. How are states' perspectives 
considered in these processes? How is information shared with states 
related to these processes? What is the appropriate role for New 
England states with respect to ISO-NE capacity market reforms?
    c. New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), in coordination with NESCOE and 
ISO-NE representatives, launched the ``New England's Future Grid 
Initiative'' in two parallel processes to (1) define and assess the 
future state of the region's power system; and (2) explore and evaluate 
potential market frameworks that could be pursued to accommodate state 
policies focused on decarbonization.\3\ What is the current status of 
each of these stakeholder processes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ISO-NE, New England's Future Grid Initiative Key Project, 
https://www.iso-ne.com/committees/key-projects/new-englands-future-grid-initiative-key-project/. See also Dr. Frank Felder, NEPOOL's 
Pathways to the Future Grid Process Project Report n.1 (Jan. 2021), 
https://nepool.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NPC_20210107_Felder_Report_on_Pathways_rev1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Many New England states have established long-term policy goals 
and/or statutory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 
increase clean energy generation. Consistent with these goals, several 
states have instituted programs to promote the development of renewable 
energy resources and to retain existing zero-emitting generation 
resources. How do the current ISO-NE market rules affect implementation 
of existing or proposed state policies? If states have differing policy 
goals, how should these be accommodated in the ISO-NE capacity market? 
How do one state's actions to shape the resource mix affect other 
states? Should such effects be addressed, and if so, how?
    e. Is ISO-NE's existing capacity market design, including the 
Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (CASPR) framework 
effective in ensuring resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates? 
Why or why not? Is it compatible with achieving New England states' 
policies? Given the small quantity of capacity cleared through the 
substitution auction, is CASPR achieving its goals? Is CASPR's current 
design durable? Why, or why not?

2. Short-Term Options and Complementary Potential Market Changes To 
Accommodate State Policies in ISO-NE

    a. Should ISO-NE's capacity market design, including the CASPR 
framework, change to better accommodate state policies? If so, how?
    b. As the resource mix in ISO-NE continues to evolve, what new 
challenges are presented? Are the needs of the evolving resource mix 
better addressed in the capacity market or the energy and ancillary 
services markets, or are changes needed in both? Please explain.
    c. At the March 23, 2021 technical conference,\4\ panelists 
suggested that

[[Page 30930]]

both short-term and long-term reforms to aspects of ISO-NE's capacity, 
energy, and ancillary services markets could be needed if CASPR and the 
Offer Review Trigger Prices (ORTPs) are modified or eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference on Resource 
Adequacy in the Evolving Electricity Sector, Docket No. AD21-10-000 
(March 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/AD21-10-000supp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. What, if any, are the short-term and long-term challenges of 
removing CASPR and the ORTPs from ISO-NE's capacity market? What market 
design changes, if any, would be necessary to preserve the capacity 
market's ability to ensure resource adequacy? If changes are necessary, 
how quickly would ISO-NE need to implement short-term changes following 
the removal of CASPR and ORTP?
    ii. What other specific modifications to ISO-NE's capacity market 
rules may be necessary? For example, should capacity accreditation 
rules for various resource types, the shape of the capacity market 
demand curve, the net cost of new entry estimates, or mechanisms to 
ensure fuel security, among others, be revised and if so why, and how? 
Approximately how long would it take ISO-NE and stakeholders to develop 
and implement each additional needed reform? Assuming any such 
modifications are necessary, which should be prioritized in the short-
term, and which should be pursued in the long-term?
    iii. Some panelists expressed concerns that ORTPs are necessary to 
prevent cost shifts between New England states. Please explain whether 
and if so, how these cost shifts would occur if CASPR and the ORTPs 
were eliminated. Is there a way to mitigate such an effect? Please 
explain. Additionally, please discuss the extent to which certain 
impacts are unavoidable in a regional market where participating 
resources are located in multiple states.

3. Long-Term Options and Centralized Procurement of Clean Energy

    a. What benefits would a centralized clean procurement mechanism in 
ISO-NE provide to the ISO-NE states and the ISO-NE markets? What would 
be the goals of such approaches and what are important design 
considerations in developing any potential market mechanism? What are 
the downsides of pursuing such constructs? What concerns regarding 
potential undue discrimination may arise from implementing such new 
market constructs, if any?
    b. What are potential challenges to developing the new market 
constructs discussed in this panel (e.g., would interstate compacts be 
required)? How could those challenges be overcome? For example, New 
England states have policies that support different types of resources 
(e.g., offshore wind). Could a standard product be developed and 
centrally procured in ISO-NE-administered markets to meet these diverse 
state policy goals? Given the differences in state policies, is it 
possible to define products that resources could provide (e.g., zero-
emission generation) and incorporate the procurement of those products 
into Commission-jurisdictional markets?
    c. Stakeholder discussions to date have focused on the Forward 
Clean Energy Market and Integrated Clean Capacity Market as potential 
frameworks. What are the key design features of these proposals? What 
are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches?
    d. Given that many state policy goals target electricity generation 
(e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standards that target a percentage of 
electric loads), would it be more effective to develop such a construct 
within the energy and ancillary services markets?
[FR Doc. 2021-12200 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P