[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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f4f7e0f1fddcdedbdcd7e1c7c2c2ddc0c6f2d4d7c0d19cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12545740515d7c7e7b7c77416762627d606652747760713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5f1d4c3dcd19be7dac6dbd0c7f5d3d0c7d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e1a3f28373a700c312d303b2c1e383b2c3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Meghan O'Brien (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6137, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1ac848689808fcfaec6a39388848fa187849382cf868e97">Meghan.O'<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c082b2a9a5ae80a6a5b2a3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>