Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Notices 65629 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. DW–011] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to Whirlpool 

Corporation From the Department of 

Energy Residential Dishwasher Test 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) gives notice of the 

decision and order (Case No. DW–011) 

that grants to Whirlpool Corporation 

(Whirlpool) a waiver from the DOE 

dishwasher test procedure. The waiver 

pertains to the models of dishwasher 

equipped with a ‘‘water use system’’ 

specified in Whirlpool’s petition. Under 

today’s decision and order, Whirlpool 

shall be required to test and rate its 

KitchenAid brand dishwasher equipped 

with a ‘‘water use system’’ using an 

alternate test procedure that takes this 

technology into account when 

measuring energy and water 

consumption. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective November 1, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 

430.27(l), DOE gives notice of the 

issuance of its decision and order as set 

forth below. The decision and order 

grants Whirlpool a waiver from the 

applicable residential dishwasher test 

procedure at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, 

appendix C1, for the KitchenAid brand 

basic model KDTE554C++# dishwasher 

equipped with a ‘‘water use system’’ as 

specified in its petition, provided that 

Whirlpool tests and rates such products 

using the alternate test procedure 

described in this notice. Today’s 

decision prohibits Whirlpool from 

making representations concerning the 

energy efficiency of these products 

unless the product has been tested in a 

manner consistent with the provisions 

and restrictions in the alternate test 

procedure set forth in the decision and 

order below, and the representations 

fairly disclose the test results. 

Distributors, retailers, and private 

labelers are held to the same standard 

when making representations regarding 

the energy efficiency of these products. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 28, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: Whirlpool 

Corporation (Case No. DW–011) 

Background 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering most 

major household appliances, which 

includes dishwashers.1 Part B includes 

definitions, test procedures, labeling 

provisions, energy conservation 

standards, and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. Further, Part B 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

which measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use, or estimated 

operating costs, and that are not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3). The test procedure for 

dishwashers is contained in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix C1. 

DOE’s regulations contain provisions 

allowing a person to seek a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements for 

covered consumer products if at least 

one of the following conditions is met: 

(1) The petitioner’s basic model 

contains one or more design 

characteristics that prevent testing 

according to the prescribed test 

procedure, or (2) when the prescribed 

test procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. (10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1)) Petitioners must include in 

their petition any alternate test 

procedures known to the petitioner to 

evaluate the basic model in a manner 

representative of its energy 

consumption characteristics. 

The Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the 

Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver 

subject to conditions, including 

adherence to alternate test procedures. 

(10 CFR 430.27(l)) Waivers remain in 

effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 

CFR 430.27(m). 

On July 3, 2013, Whirlpool submitted 

the petition for waiver and interim 

waiver from the test procedure 

applicable to dishwashers set forth in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1. 

Whirlpool seeks a waiver from the 

applicable test procedure for its 

KitchenAid brand basic model 

KDTE554C++# dishwasher equipped 

with a ‘‘water use system’’ because, 

Whirlpool asserts, design characteristics 

of this basic model prevent testing in 

accordance with the currently 

prescribed test procedure and will lead 

to results that are materially inaccurate 

and mislead consumers. 

Whirlpool states that the dishwasher 

‘‘water use system’’ saves water from the 

final rinse of a given dishwasher cycle 

for use in a subsequent dishwasher 

cycle. If not operated for three or more 

days, the dishwasher will ‘‘drain out’’ 

the saved water. The dishwasher also 

performs a ‘‘clean out’’ every thirty days 

or thirty cycles, whichever occurs first. 

Both ‘‘drain out’’ and ‘‘clean out’’ events 

consume additional water and energy 

during the subsequent cycle. This 

additional water and energy 

consumption are accounted for in the 

waiver petition. The ‘‘water use system’’ 

is installed on soil-sensing model 

dishwashers that utilize 120 degree 

(deg.) Fahrenheit (F) inlet water. A 

‘‘drain out’’ event consumes an 

additional 1.02 gallons of water for a 

cycle in which it occurs. The ‘‘clean 

out’’ event consumes an additional 1.24 

gallons of water for a cycle in which it 

occurs. ‘‘Drain out’’ and ‘‘clean out’’ 

events occur during the active mode, 

but before the power dry portion of the 

cycle begins. The power dry, fan-only 

mode, inactive mode, and off mode are 

not affected by ‘‘water use system’’ 

operation water consumption or energy 

consumption. 

Whirlpool provided an alternative test 

method that would add these constant 

values to the energy and water use 

measured pursuant to Appendix C1, as 

well as a constant water consumption 

value to determine the detergent 

quantity for testing. Whirlpool also 

provided the additional information and 

calculations below in support of its 

alternative test method. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Notices 

Further detail and calculation 

method: 

‘‘Drain out’’ event (if dishwasher is 

not used for 3 or more days)—The 

‘‘drain out’’ event consumes an 

additional 1.02 gallons of water for the 

cycle in which it occurs. Consumer 

research shows that only seven percent 

of consumer cycles, for consumers who 

run approximately 215 cycles/year, have 

longer than a three day delay between 

cycles. This results in ‘‘drain out’’ water 

and energy usage of 0.072 gallons/cycle 

and 2.61 kWh/year: 

• 7 percent of 215 cycles/year equates 

to 15.1 cycles/year. 

• 15.1 cycles/year multiplied by 1.02 

gallons/cycle results in 15.4 gallons/ 

year of additional water usage for ‘‘drain 

out’’ events. 

• 15.4 gallons/year apportioned 

across all 215 cycles calculates to 0.072 

gallons/cycle. 

• The ‘‘drain out’’ event water energy 

consumption, based on 15.4 gallons/ 

year, calculates to 2.59 kWh/year (15.4 

gallons/year multiplied by 70 deg. F 

water heater temperature rise multiplied 

by the constant K of 0.0024 kWh/gallon/ 

deg. F). 

• The additional machine energy 

consumption associated with a ‘‘drain 

out’’ event is less than 0.001 kWh/event 

or 0.02 kWh/year. 

Æ Pump and valve: 10 W for 4.5 

minutes followed by 30 W for 0.5 

minutes; 7 percent of 215 cycles/year is 

used for the calculation. 

‘‘Clean out’’ event (every 30 days or 

30 dishwasher cycles whichever occurs 

first)—The ‘‘clean out’’ event consumes 

an additional 1.24 gallons of water for 

the cycle in which it occurs. Water is 

heated during the ‘‘clean out’’ event. A 

‘‘clean out’’ event will occur every 30 

days (used for this calculation) or 12.2 

events/year. 12.2 events/year, based on 

215 cycles/year, calculates to 6 percent 

of all dishwasher cycles. Water and 

energy use (apportioned) are 0.071 

gallons/cycle and 10.3 kWh/year: 

• 1.24 gallons/event multiplied by 

12.2 events/year calculates to 15.1 

gallons/year of additional water usage 

for ‘‘clean out’’ events. 

• 15.1 gallons/year apportioned 

across all 215 cycles calculates to 0.071 

gallons per cycle. 

• The ‘‘clean out’’ event water energy 

consumption, based on 15.1 gallons/ 

year, calculates to 2.54 kWh/year (15.1 

gallons/year multiplied by 70 deg. F 

water heater temperature rise multiplied 

by the constant K of 0.0024 kWh/gallon/ 

deg. F). 

• The additional machine energy 

consumption associated with a ‘‘clean 

out’’ event is 7.72 kWh/year from pump, 

valve, and heater operation. 

Æ Pump and valve: Approximately 

0.006 kWh per event or 0.073 kWh per 

year (electrical components use an 

additional 30 W for a combined 

duration of 9 minutes plus 10 W for a 

combined duration of 8.5 minutes; the 

calculation is based on 12.2 events per 

year). 

Æ Pump and heater: 1.24 gallons of 

water is heated for approximately 47 

minutes using 800 watts, or 0.63 kWh/ 

event. This calculates to 7.65 kWh/year 

based on 12.2 events/year. 

Calculation of detergent 

concentration: 

A portion of the water fill volume 

comes from saved water fill instead of 

the house supply water fill. This saved 

water fill amount (0.80 gallons) should 

be included with (added to) the house 

supply water fill amount (0.11 gallons) 

when calculating detergent 

concentration for the wash (a total of 

0.91 gallons). The method to determine 

the saved water fill volume is affected 

by several factors including when the 

first cycle is run on a new dishwasher 

and ‘‘charging’’ of the sump and water 

lines. Two approaches may be used to 

determine the amount of water in the 

first fill: 

1. Use a constant amount of water for 

the wash fill of 0.91 gallons. This is the 

recommended approach and is 

representative. 

2. Measure the amount of drain water 

discharged during the first drain out. 

Measure this amount during the second 

preconditioning cycle. This would be 

approximately 0.91 gallons. 

Assertions and Determinations 

Whirlpool’s Petition for Waiver 

On July 3, 2013, Whirlpool filed a 

petition for waiver from the test 

procedure applicable to residential 

dishwashers set forth in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix C1 for 

particular models of dishwasher 

equipped with a ‘‘water use system.’’ On 

August 9, 2013, DOE published 

Whirlpool’s petition for waiver and 

granted Whirlpool an interim waiver 

from the current test procedure. 78 FR 

48661. 

DOE received one comment on 

Whirlpool’s petition from BSH Home 

Appliance Corporation (BSH). BSH 

stated that the annual energy 

consumption and water consumption 

contributions associated with ‘‘drain 

out’’ should be 41.75 gallons per year 

and 7.05 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year 

instead of 15.4 gallons per year and 2.6 

kWh per year as included in the original 

petition for waiver. BSH based its 

calculations on data presented in a 

report by Arthur D. Little (ADL) that 

was used in support of the 2003 test 

procedure final rule. 68 FR 51887 

(August 29, 2003). Whirlpool provided 

a rebuttal of BSH’s comment on 

September 20, 2013 stating that they 

disagree with BSH’s conclusions and 

maintain the calculations in the interim 

waiver are consistent with the precedent 

set by DOE and implemented by 

stakeholders; therefore, Whirlpool 

asserted that their original calculations 

should continue as the foundation of the 

Petition for Waiver. DOE notes that the 

data presented in the ADL report show 

the distribution of annual cycles among 

the surveyed consumers, but do not 

present further information regarding 

the typical intervals between 

consecutive cycles. The calculations 

provided by BSH include assumptions 

regarding the typical cycle interval, but 

these are not necessarily representative 

of consumer behavior. For example, if 

the number of annual cycles results in 

greater than a 3-day average interval 

between cycles (i.e., 121 annual cycles 

or less), the BSH calculations assume 

every cycle per year will have a ‘‘drain 

out’’ event. In reality, consumers with 

greater than 3-day average intervals 

between cycles will likely run a portion 

of the annual cycles within 3 days of 

each other, so it is likely that less than 

100-percent of these cycles will have a 

‘‘drain out’’ event. When the average 

interval between cycles is less than 3 

days (i.e., more than 121 annual cycles), 

BSH’s calculations still assume a 

portion of the cycles will have a ‘‘drain 

out’’ event, reflecting that some cycles 

likely are not run within 3 days of the 

previous cycle. As a result, DOE 

concludes that the BSH calculations 

likely overestimate the annual energy 

consumption and water consumption 

associated with ‘‘drain out’’ events 

because they assume the ‘‘drain out’’ 

occurs on every cycle for the consumers 

with less than 121 annual cycles, but 

also assume that some ‘‘drain out’’ 

events occur for consumers with more 

than 121 annual cycles. To consistently 

apply cycle interval data inferred from 

the ADL data, if the calculations assume 

that ‘‘drain out’’ events occur for all 

cycles for consumers with average 

intervals between cycles greater than or 

equal to 3 days, then no ‘‘drain out’’ 

events should be assumed for 

consumers with average intervals 

between cycles of less than 3 days. 

Doing so would decrease the annual 

‘‘drain out’’ energy consumption to 2.93 

kWh per year, and the water 

consumption to 17.3 gallons per year. 

These values are close to Whirlpool’s 

estimates of 2.6 kWh per year and 15.4 

gallons per year, which are based on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Notices 65631 

consumer research that includes 

information on intervals between cycles. 

Given the uncertainty in estimating 

cycle intervals from the ADL report, 

DOE concludes that Whirlpool’s 

estimates are reasonable and is not 

revising the values that were included 

in the alternate test procedure as 

presented in the interim waiver 

published on August 9, 2013. 78 FR 

48661. 

BSH also stated that DOE should 

consider removing two additional 

requirements: The requirement for a 

new dishwasher to be used in testing 

and, if more than 68 hours elapse 

between test cycles, the requirement to 

disconnect and reconnect power to the 

dishwasher to restart the test series. 

According to BSH, these two 

requirements may offer a means to 

circumventing the test procedure. In 

Whirlpool’s September 20, 2013 

rebuttal, they also disagree with BSH 

assessment. DOE notes that while 

Whirlpool included the requirement for 

a new machine for testing as part of its 

petition for waiver, DOE did not include 

this requirement in the alternate test 

procedure set forth in the interim 

waiver granted to Whirlpool. Such a 

requirement would impose an 

unreasonable burden when multiple 

tests are conducted. 

DOE did, however, include in the 

alternate test procedure the requirement 

to disconnect and reconnect power to 

the machine if a ‘‘drain out’’ or ‘‘clean 

out’’ event occurs during a test series, 

and to subsequently restart the test 

series with the controls reset. This 

approach would not place burden on 

test laboratories by requiring them to 

monitor the time intervals between 

cycles and number of cycles throughout 

multiple tests. Should laboratories 

choose to do so, DOE included the 68- 

hour maximum interval between test 

cycles as an informative means for 

avoiding ‘‘drain out’’ events during 

testing. Because testing is conducted on 

products that are in their initial state 

disconnected from the power supply, 

the conduct of the test procedure after 

disconnecting power after a ‘‘drain out’’ 

or ‘‘clean out’’ event is the same as the 

conduct of any test in which the test 

series is begun by connecting power to 

the machine and starting the test cycles. 

In each case, a ‘‘clean out’’ event would 

take place during the first cycle after 

power is supplied to the machine. For 

these reasons, DOE is maintaining the 

testing provisions included in the 

alternate test procedure set forth in the 

interim waiver published on August 9, 

2013. 78 FR 48661. 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed 

above, DOE grants Whirlpool’s petition 

for waiver from testing of its KitchenAid 

brand basic model KDTE554C++# 

dishwasher equipped with a ‘‘water use 

system.’’ 

Consultations With Other Agencies 

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) staff concerning the 

Whirlpool petition for waiver. The FTC 

staff did not have any objections to 

granting a waiver to Whirlpool. 

Conclusion 

After careful consideration of all the 

material that was submitted by 

Whirlpool and consultation with the 

FTC staff, it is ordered that: 

(1) The petition for waiver submitted 

by Whirlpool Corporation (Case No. 

DW–011) is hereby granted as set forth 

in the paragraphs below. 

(2) Whirlpool shall be required to test 

and rate the following Whirlpool 

models according to the alternate test 

procedure set forth in paragraph (3) 

below. 

KitchenAid brand: Basic Model— 

KDTE554C ++ # 

(3) Whirlpool shall be required to test 

the products listed in paragraph (2) 

above according to the test procedures 

for residential dishwashers prescribed 

by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix C1, except that, for the 

Whirlpool products listed in paragraph 

(2) only with the following: 

‘‘Water use system’’ water and energy 

consumption shall be accounted for 

during dishwasher water and energy 

measurement and reporting. The 

following is a summary of the additional 

modifications required: 

• For ‘‘drain out’’ events, constant 

values of 0.072 gallons per cycle and 2.6 

kWh/year shall be added to values 

measured by appendix C1. 

• For ‘‘clean out’’ events, constant 

values of 0.071 gallons per cycle and 

10.3 kWh/year shall also be added to 

values measured by appendix C1. 

• To calculate the detergent quantity 

for testing, a constant value of 0.91 

gallons for the water fill amount shall be 

used, representing both saved water fill 

and house supply water fill. 

• If a ‘‘drain out’’ or ‘‘clean out’’ event 

occurs during testing, any results from 

that use of the test procedure shall be 

disregarded. Disconnect and reconnect 

power to the dishwasher, then restart 

the test procedure. 

Æ To detect a ‘‘drain out’’ event, 

measure the water volume supplied 

during the first fill. A cycle shall be 

considered to have a ‘‘drain out’’ event 

if the first fill uses approximately 1 

gallon from the water supply. Without 

a ‘‘drain out’’ event, the first fill would 

use approximately 0.11 gallons from the 

water supply. 

Æ To detect a ‘‘clean out’’ event, 

monitor the temperature of the sump 

water using an additional temperature 

measuring device. The device shall be 

placed inside the sump in an area such 

that the device will always be 

submerged in water and will not 

interfere with the operation of the 

dishwasher. A cycle shall be considered 

to have a ‘‘clean out’’ event if the 

temperature of the sump water during 

wash and rinse portions of the cycle 

reaches 150 deg. F. Without a ‘‘clean 

out’’ event, the highest sump water 

temperatures would reach 

approximately 140 deg. F. 

• It is recommended that all testing 

be completed within 28 days, and 

within 28 cycles of first dishwasher use, 

to avoid a ‘‘clean out’’ event. No more 

than 68 hours should lapse between the 

start of cycles to avoid a ‘‘drain out’’ 

event. Cycles include preconditioning 

cycles as well as test cycles. 

Other testing requirements or 

considerations: 

To confirm if saved water has 

returned to room ambient temperature, 

a thermocouple may be placed on the 

surface of saved water tank to measure 

temperature. Reference section 2.5.1 of 

appendix C1. 

Removing power from the dishwasher 

will result in a ‘‘clean out’’ event during 

the next dishwasher cycle. As required 

by section 2.2.1 of appendix C1, it is 

necessary to maintain a continuous 

electrical supply to the unit throughout 

testing, including during 

preconditioning cycles and the test 

cycle series. 

(4) Representations. Whirlpool may 

make representations about the energy 

use of its dishwasher equipped with a 

‘‘water use system’’ products for 

compliance, marketing, or other 

purposes only to the extent that such 

products have been tested in accordance 

with the provisions outlined above and 

such representations fairly disclose the 

results of such testing. 

(5) This waiver shall remain in effect 

consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 

430.27(m). 

(6) This waiver is issued on the 

condition that the statements, 

representations, and documentary 

materials provided by the petitioner are 

valid. DOE may revoke or modify this 

waiver at any time if it determines the 

factual basis underlying the petition for 

waiver is incorrect, or the results from 

the alternate test procedure are 

unrepresentative of the basic models’ 

true energy consumption characteristics. 

(7) This waiver applies only to those 

basic models set out in Whirlpool’s July 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65632 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 212 / Friday, November 1, 2013 / Notices 

1While the Commission recognizes that other 

regions are considering similar issues, the technical 

conference focused solely on the centralized 

capacity markets in the ISO–NE, NYISO and PJM 

regions. Thus, post-technical conference comments 

should be focused on those three regions as well. 

3, 2013 petition for waiver. Grant of this 

waiver does not release a petitioner 

from the certification requirements set 

forth at 10 CFR part 429. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 28, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26085 Filed 10–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. AD13–7–000] 

Centralized Capacity Markets in 

Regional Transmission Organizations 

and Independent System Operators; 

Notice Allowing Post-Technical 

Conference Comments 

On September 25, 2013, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) conducted a technical 

conference to consider how current 

centralized capacity market rules and 

structures in the regions served by ISO 

New England Inc. (ISO–NE), New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

(NYISO), and PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. (PJM) are supporting the 

procurement and retention of resources 

necessary to meet future reliability and 

operational needs.1

All interested persons are invited to 

file post-technical conference comments 

on any or all of the questions listed in 

the attachment to this Notice. 

Commenters need not address every 

question. Commenters are also invited 

to rely on or cite to testimony that was 

previously filed in this docket and the 

technical conference transcript in their 

comments. These comments must be 

filed with the Commission no later than 

5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) 

on Monday, December 9, 2013. 

For more information about this 

Notice, please contact: 

Shiv Mani (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8240, Shiv.Mani@ferc.govmailto: 

Kate Hoke (Legal Information), Office of 

the General Counsel, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8404, Katheryn.Hoke@

ferc.gov. 

Dated: October 25, 2013. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

Post-Technical Conference Questions 

for Comment 

1. Role of Capacity Markets and 

Definition of the Capacity Product 

Panelists discussed the definition of 

the capacity product and, in particular, 

the relationship between the capacity 

and energy and ancillary services 

markets, both today and in the future as 

electric system needs change. In 

particular, panelists addressed the 

importance of properly defining the 

capacity product, and whether 

additional capacity products should be 

defined to recognize future system 

operational needs. Some favored 

retention of the current design, 

procuring a single capacity product 

focused on meeting basic resource 

adequacy requirements, with any 

operational attributes needed to meet 

system requirements procured in the 

energy and ancillary services markets. 

Others favored an approach that would 

procure differentiated products in 

capacity markets, incorporating 

attributes that meet specific operational 

needs. In addition, panelists discussed 

how different categories of resources 

(traditional generation, new resources 

vs. existing resources, demand response, 

energy efficiency, distributed 

generation, etc.) should be valued and 

accounted for in centralized capacity 

markets. 

• When procuring a single capacity 

product, as under current market 

designs, are there certain fundamental 

performance standards that capacity 

resources should be required to meet in 

the delivery year to ensure resource 

adequacy? Should any such requirement 

change depending on the type of 

resource (traditional generation, new 

resources vs. existing resources, demand 

response, energy efficiency, distributed 

generation, etc.)? 

• Should existing capacity products 

be modified to reflect various 

operational characteristics needed to 

meet system needs? If there is a need for 

additional capacity products, how 

should those products be defined and 

procured in light of the current one day 

in ten year resource adequacy approach? 

• Alternatively, if it is more 

appropriate to rely on energy and 

ancillary services markets to obtain 

needed operational characteristics, how 

can market participants and regulators 

be confident that resources capable of 

providing such ancillary services will be 

available in future periods? To what 

extent are the existing categories of 

ancillary services adequate to meet 

current and future operational needs 

without a forward market? 

• What improvements are needed in 

how centralized capacity markets 

determine qualification as a capacity 

resource? Do the requirements to 

participate in the centralized capacity 

markets accommodate all resources 

(whether supply-side, demand-side, or 

imports) that are technically capable of 

providing the traditional forward 

capacity product? 

• As changes in technology and 

markets drive new system needs, are 

modifications needed to existing 

methods for determining resource 

adequacy requirements (i.e., the reserve 

margins centralized capacity markets 

are designed to procure)? 

• What is the role(s) of centralized 

capacity markets? Should the 

centralized capacity markets function as 

a mandatory market for procuring 

capacity or a residual market that 

entities only need to use to meet their 

resource adequacy obligations that they 

cannot otherwise meet through selfsupply? 

2. Accommodating State Policies and 

Self-Supply by Load Serving Entities 

As discussed at the technical 

conference, States have policies to 

maintain resource adequacy and 

procure specific resources to meet 

environmental objectives. In addition, 

load serving entities are often interested 

in supplying their own resource 

adequacy requirements; some load 

serving entities (LSEs) have suggested 

that current centralized capacity market 

designs do not allow them to do so 

effectively. Incorporating States’ 

policies and LSE preferences in the 

design of capacity markets has raised 

challenges for the Commission in 

ensuring the integrity of its wholesale 

markets. 

• In what ways do the current 

centralized capacity market designs 

facilitate, or hinder, the ability of market 

participants to enter into arrangements 

to supply their own resource adequacy 

requirements? Should the Commission 

consider changes to the current capacity 

market designs to facilitate these 

arrangements? How would any potential 

changes impact capacity market prices 

paid by LSEs and the price signals 

provided to capacity resources? 

• Some panelists suggested other 

potential modifications to the existing 

centralized capacity markets to 

accommodate self-supply and/or state 

policies, including limited or resource 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES