Talk:Regional transmission organization (North America)

message: This article should probably be merged with Independent System Operator, though I am undecided on which title the combined article should retain.  Thoughts?  Fjbfour 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Both should be merged into a single article and I would recommend ISO/RTO as a new title. This would be consistent with the ISO/RTO Council naming convention. If I receive enough positive response as supporting comments here, I would be inclined to draft a new article. Such a revision and merge would likely resolve the NPOV as well. Thoughts?  Smbateman (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created a working draft called ISO/RTO to facilitate a discussion. It is a work-in-progress and I intend to combine information from Independent System Operator and Regional Transmission Organization into a single article. Smbateman (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, let's get it done ASAP.  This proposal has been hanging on the wire, so to speak, for over years! Bearian (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge (2007)

message: This is a notation of why I stuck NPOV on the article.  There is a lace of anti-regulation rhetoric in the article.  For example, "FERC describes this as a "voluntary" system, however both its orders and FERC commissioners' comments were clear that they wanted to force anyone involved in interstate power transmission to sign on the dotted line."  Clear?  How?  Force?  Nefarious motives?  Huh?  The following section also seemed to have an axe to grind, especially in the closing statement:
:"However, in the last decade of the 20th century, some policy makers and academics began to argue that the electric industry would ultimately experience deregulation, and RTOs were conceived as the way to handle the vastly increased number of transactions that take place in a competitive environment.  It should be noted that, ultimately, only about a dozen states decided to deregulate, others having pulled back after California's debacle and still others deciding that perhaps the old system was not, as often claimed, irretrievably broken.  If the justification for creating RTOs was the management of deregulated power markets, the relative lack of these markets may call into the question the creation of the organizations." 
If anyone has time to fix it, be my guest and remove the npov. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 2008-11 

message: This article has several inaccuracies. All would be resolved as described under the Merge section. Examples include:
# "an organization that is responsible for moving electricity over large interstate areas." -- The responsibility is greater than this and includes intrastate as well.
# "RTOs were created by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)" -- RTOs are created voluntarily by groups of transmission providers, load serving entities and generators. FERC recommended the concept of an RTO under Order Number 2000.
# "FERC commissioners' comments were clear that they wanted to force anyone involved in interstate power transmission to sign on the dotted line." -- untrue
# Use of the term "Deregulation" -- The North American power market is not deregulated. FERC orders specified restructuring. 
# "RTOs ensure three key free marketer drives" -- At a minimum, there are 4 characteristics and 7 functions of an RTO.
# "ISOs typically perform the same functions as RTOs, but cover a smaller geographic area, or are not subject to FERC jurisdiction, like ERCOT." -- Smaller geography is not the differentiator nor is FERC jurisdiction; true, ERCOT, is not overseen by FERC but it's because ERCOT does not participate in interstate commerce. ERCOT performs the role of an RTO without the "RTO" designation because it has never petitioned FERC for the right. Doing so would place ERCOT under FERC jurisdiction which is something ERCOT is not in favor of.
Smbateman (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: The content about electricity distribution in the US should be re-organized, a hierarchy should be outlined and detail added, with the provisions for changes which are underway with these organizations controlling the grid. The US Grid is under-going upgrades & changes, (smart-grid efforts), and work needs to be done to clarify this hierarchy, ie, (FERC/DoE, ISO/RTO, PUC) and the scope of oversight they provide. Also a US ISO/RTO map should be added.  -- (Don Doughty) 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is primarily about the US grid, not global. Little content is about the electricity marketplace. If merge with Transmission system operator is to occur, a major rewrite and split is nescessary. TGCP (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: It should be clarified who actually owns the transmission grid and how it's financed.  I assume individual utilities do so.  I know there's a "transmission" charge on ratepayer bills, but it's unclear to me how the cost for regional transmission is allocated among local utilities. -- Beland (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership and financing 

message: According to the FERC's website (November 2011) 
* SPP was granted RTO status in 2004.
* MISO is not an RTO. Rick lightburn (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTO status is wrong? 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Is NERC's map a more up-to-date version of RTOs than the one included in this article? If so, can we replace the map here with a more complete one? https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/bpsa/Pages/RCs.aspx 75.119.181.2 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability Coordinator (RC) Map Replacing RTO Map