[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 108 (Friday, June 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24130-24137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD25-7-000]
Meeting the Challenge of Resource Adequacy in Regional
Transmission Organization and Independent System Operator Regions;
Third Supplemental Notice of Commissioner-Led Technical Conference
As announced in the February 20, 2025 Notice in this proceeding,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a
Commissioner-led technical conference in the above-referenced
proceeding. The two-day technical conference will take place from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, and 9:00
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 5, 2025, in the Kevin
J. McIntyre Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The purpose of this technical conference is to discuss generic
issues related to resource adequacy constructs, including the roles of
capacity markets in the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO)/
Independent System Operator (ISO) regions that utilize them and
alternative constructs in RTO/ISO regions without capacity markets. The
conference will start with a panel discussion on resource adequacy
challenges across RTO/ISO regions, including regional differences. The
remainder of the first day will include three panels specific to PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) that will explore PJM's resource adequacy
challenge, PJM states' perspectives, and additional perspectives on
PJM's path forward. The second day will start with two panels specific
to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) that will
explore MISO's resource adequacy challenge and perspectives on MISO's
path forward. The remainder of the second day will include one panel to
explore the resource adequacy challenge in ISO New England Inc. (ISO-
NE) and New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) and a final
panel on the resource adequacy challenge in California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and Southwest
[[Page 24131]]
Power Pool (SPP). The preliminary agenda for this conference is
attached to this Supplemental Notice and provides more detail for each
panel.
Commission staff will post pre-filed statements submitted by
panelists on the FERC technical conference web page prior to the
conference and in eLibrary. With the exception of opening statements on
Panel 1, which may be delivered orally, all other panels will proceed
immediately to questions from the Chairman and Commissioners.
All interested persons are also invited to file pre-technical
conference comments in eLibrary on the issues of the conference,
including the questions listed in the attached agenda. Commenters need
not answer all the questions but are encouraged to organize responses
using the numbering and sequencing in the attached agenda.
The Commission does not intend to discuss at this technical
conference any specific proceeding pending before the Commission,
including proceedings that involve similar issues. These proceedings
include, but are not limited to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Business Marketing LLC; NRG Power Marketing ER23-2688, et al.; ER22-
LLC. 1539, et al.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc...................... ER24-1317-000; ER24-
2953-000
H.A. Wagner LLC; Brandon Shores LLC............ ER24-1787, et al.; ER24-
1790, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER24-2045-000
California Independent System Operator Corp.... ER24-2671, et al.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc...................... ER25-89-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-507, et al.
Manitowoc Public Utilities..................... ER25-634-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-682, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-712, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-785, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-1128, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Commonwealth of ER25-1357, et al.; EL25-
Pennsylvania v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 46, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-1525-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-1623-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-1674-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-1729-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-1802-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-1886-000
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..................... ER25-2002-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-2050-000
New York Independent System Operator, Inc...... ER25-2245-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-2247-000
Southwest Power Pool, Inc...................... ER25-2296-000
Southwest Power Pool, Inc...................... ER25-2297-000
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.. ER25-2298-000
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, EL24-96-000
Inc., and Sustainable FERC Project v.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, EL24-148-000
Public Citizen, Sustainable FERC Project, and
Union of Concerned Scientists v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Joint Consumer Advocates, Illinois Citizens EL25-18-000
Utility Board, Maryland Office of the People's
Counsel, New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel,
Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, Office
of the People's Counsel for the District of
Columbia v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC v. PJM EL25-20-000
Interconnection, L.L.C.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Allegheny Electric EL25-49, et al.
Cooperative, Inc., American Transmission
Systems, Incorporated, Atlantic City Electric
Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,
Delmarva Power & Light Company, Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., East
Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc., Essential
Power Rock Springs, LLC, Hudson Transmission
Partners, LLC, Jersey Central Power & Light
Company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission,
LLC, Neptune Regional Transmission System,
LLC, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PECO
Energy Company, PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation, Potomac Electric Power Company,
Public Service Electric and Gas Company,
Rockland Electric Company, Trans-Allegheny
Interstate Line Company, Transource West
Virginia, LLC, UGI Utilities, Inc.,
Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison
Company, Commonwealth Edison Company,
Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc.,
The Dayton Power and Light Company, AEP
Appalachian Transmission Company, Inc., AEP
Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc.,
AEP Kentucky Transmission Company, Inc., AEP
Ohio Transmission Company, Inc., AEP West
Virginia Transmission Company, Inc.
Appalachian Power Company, Indiana Michigan
Power Company, Kentucky Power Company,
Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company,
Wheeling Power Company, Duquesne Light
Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Linden VFT, LLC, City of Cleveland, Department
of Public Utilities, Division of Cleveland
Public Power, City of Hamilton, OH, Southern
Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc., Ohio
Valley Electric Corporation, AMP Transmission,
LLC, Silver Run Electric, LLC, NextEra Energy
Transmission MidAtlantic Indiana, Inc., Wabash
Valley Power Association, Inc., Keystone
Appalachian Transmission Company.
Joint Consumer Advocates v. PJM EL25-76-000
Interconnection, L.L.C.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation RD25-7-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24132]]
The technical conference will be open to the public. Advance
registration is not required, and there is no fee for attendance.
Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. To stay
apprised of issuances in this docket, there is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Commission's website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
The technical conference will be transcribed and webcast.
Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-
3700). A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the
Commission Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov. The Commission provides
technical support for the free webcasts. Please call 202-502-8680 or
email [email protected] if you have any questions.
Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations,
please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-
208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-8659 (TTY) or send a fax to 202-208-2106
with the required accommodations.
For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Tim Bialecki at [email protected] or 202-502-8403. For
legal information, please contact Nathan Lobel at [email protected]
or 202-502-8456. For logistics information, please contact the Office
of Public Participation (OPP) at [email protected] or 202-502-6595.
Dated: June 2, 2025.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
Meeting the Challenge of Resource Adequacy in Regional Transmission
Organization and Independent System Operator Regions, Docket No. AD25-
7-000
Agenda
Wednesday, June 4, 2025
9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Panel 1: The Resource Adequacy Challenge in RTOs/
ISOs
This panel will include opening statements from RTO/ISO
representatives and a North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) representative. Panelists should focus on defining resource
adequacy, identifying resource adequacy challenges across RTOs/ISOs,
and identifying information that will inform and guide later
discussions.
In recent years, resource retirements, load growth, and the
changing resource mix have contributed to resource adequacy challenges
across the nation, including in the RTO/ISO regions. According to
NERC's 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, five of the six
Commission jurisdictional RTO/ISO regions are at either high or
elevated risk of experiencing electricity supply shortfalls.\1\ High
risk regions are expected to fall below established resource adequacy
criteria in the next five years, while elevated risk regions meet
resource adequacy criteria but are likely to experience shortfalls in
extreme weather conditions. Some trends that continue to challenge
regions' abilities to achieve resource adequacy include: increasing
amounts of large commercial and industrial loads (e.g., data centers);
electrification of energy end uses in transportation and building
heating/cooling; retirement of baseload generation resources; and
slower than anticipated interconnection of new resources.\2\ RTO/ISO
representatives should discuss their current resource adequacy
constructs, recent resource adequacy challenges and, most importantly,
their plans and recommendations to address resource adequacy challenges
within their RTOs/ISOs in the future as demand grows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NERC, 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment 6 (Dec. 2024),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf.
\2\ See id. 8-9, 12, 16, 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What is the current state of resource adequacy across RTO/ISO
regions? Is this static or variable? Are resource adequacy challenges
more acute in RTO/ISO regions with capacity markets compared to those
RTO/ISO regions with alternative resource adequacy constructs? Why or
why not?
2. Given load growth and generation forecasts, what are your
resource adequacy challenges going forward?
3. How do you reconcile your RTO's/ISO's resource adequacy
objectives with state public policy requirements, which may accelerate
the retirement of certain resource types or limit the entry of other
resource types? For example, in light of such state public policy
requirements and particularly in multi-state RTOs/ISOs, how does your
RTO/ISO ensure resource adequacy?
4. What are the key drivers that cause delays in the construction
and interconnection of generators in your RTO/ISO? What can be done to
accelerate the interconnection of generators to help meet the resource
adequacy challenge? How have factors external to your RTO/ISO, such as
supply chains and siting/permitting, impacted generator interconnection
timelines? What is the composition of resources in the queue? Will
accelerating queue processes help address the challenge of resource
adequacy? How many resources (by number and aggregate nameplate
capacity) have received approval for interconnection but have not been
constructed? How, if at all, are the expected resource adequacy
contributions of a resource in the interconnection queue considered
during the interconnection process?
5. Are there additional concerns that may affect resource adequacy
in the near term (e.g., over the next five years) and in the longer
term (e.g., ten years and beyond)?
6. In NERC's view, what aspects of resource adequacy planning could
be improved? For example, what type of reliability metric (or metrics)
should be used in resource adequacy planning models? What elements of
resource adequacy planning can be improved or could serve as best
practices?
7. How does your RTO/ISO approach capacity accreditation? What are
the benefits and drawbacks of harmonizing capacity accreditation
methods across regions versus allowing for regional variation?
a. Given that many regions use the same probabilistic models for
both evaluating resource adequacy and/or reserve margins and for
Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) accreditation, are there best
practices in approaches that NERC is observing that could help align
various regions across the country in using the best modeling
methodologies or data sources, etc.?
b. What are the potential strengths, weaknesses, and implementation
considerations of alternatives to ELCC when evaluating the contribution
of various types of resources in meeting resource adequacy
requirements?
8. How can the RTOs/ISOs ensure that their demand forecasts
adequately take into account load growth from data centers and other
large loads? How can the RTOs/ISOs ensure there is sufficient supply to
meet these demands, and what will those sources of supply be?
9. How can demand flexibility and demand-side management solutions
be utilized to address load growth and resource adequacy concerns?
10. How do you reflect transmission availability--both regional and
interregional--in your resource
[[Page 24133]]
adequacy planning and requirements? To what extent do your transmission
planning processes capture the resource adequacy benefits of regional
and interregional transmission?
Panelists
Manu Asthana, PJM, President and CEO
Todd Ramey, MISO, Senior Vice President of Markets and Digital
Strategy
Gordon van Welie, ISO-NE, President and CEO
Richard J. Dewey, NYISO, President and CEO
Lanny Nickell, SPP, President and CEO
Elliot Mainzer, CAISO, President and CEO
Jim Robb, NERC, President and CEO
10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: 15-Minute Break
10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Panel 2: PJM's Resource Adequacy Challenge
This panel discussion among the Commission, PJM, and stakeholders
will focus on resource adequacy challenges specific to PJM, including
whether changes to the existing market construct are needed or
potential alternatives to the existing mandatory capacity market
construct should be considered.
PJM states that it is facing potential capacity shortfalls as soon
as the 2026/2027 Delivery Year due to a combination of trends,
including growing electricity demand, rapid retirement of thermal
generators, and slow entry of replacement generation.\3\ PJM's capacity
auction for the 2025/2026 Delivery Year cleared at record high prices
due to a variety of factors, including declines in supply, growing
demand, a higher reserve requirement, and revised capacity market
rules.\4\ In response to recent challenges, PJM has revisited several
of its capacity market's design elements, such as non-performance
penalties, granular resource adequacy modeling, resource accreditation,
and the role of reliability must-run resources in PJM's capacity
market.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ PJM Board of Directors, Letter to Stakeholders (Dec. 9,
2024), https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/about-pjm/who-we-are/public-disclosures/2024/20241209-board-letter-outlining-action-on-capacity-market-adjustments-rri-and-sis.pdf.
\4\ PJM, 2025/2026 Base Residual Auction Results (2024), https:/
/www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/committees-groups/committees/mrc/2024/
20240821/20240821-item-08_-2025-2026-base-residual-auction_-
presentation.pdf.
\5\ See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 190 FERC ] 61,088 (2025);
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 190 FERC ] 61,117 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in PJM in the near term
(e.g., over the next five years) and over the longer term (e.g., ten
years and beyond)?
2. Going forward, what steps will PJM need to take to ensure
resource adequacy? Is PJM's resource adequacy construct adequate to
determine resource adequacy needs given changing circumstances (e.g.,
unforeseen load growth, changes in state public policy requirements,
faster-than-anticipated retirement of resources)?
3. How does PJM establish its load and resource forecasts?
a. Have the assumptions driving load and capacity resource
forecasts changed over time? If so, how?
b. How do the forecast models weight different inputs? Are some
assumptions more uncertain, important, or impactful than others?
c. How have the forecasts performed historically and are you
considering any changes to forecasting models or processes? For
example, are you considering requiring demonstration of commercial
readiness from prospective new large load additions?
4. To what extent are barriers to entry (e.g., the interconnection
queue backlog, supply chain limitations, siting and permitting delays,
etc.) impeding the ability of the capacity market to achieve resource
adequacy at just and reasonable rates? What opportunities are there to
address these barriers to entry?
5. How does PJM consider electric-gas coordination issues in the
context of resource adequacy planning and capacity resource
accreditation?
a. To what extent do uncertainties pertaining to natural gas fuel
supplies or infrastructure constraints affect resource adequacy
planning in PJM? How can PJM better address those uncertainties?
b. Does PJM need additional natural gas pipeline infrastructure for
the future or is existing infrastructure sufficient?
6. To what extent does the availability of regional and
interregional transmission capability affect resource adequacy planning
in PJM? How can PJM better address the effect of transmission
capability on resource adequacy?
7. Is the PJM capacity market adequately designed to provide
correct signals for needed capacity additions? Given the degree to
which the capacity market rules have changed in recent years, is the
PJM capacity market producing stable investment signals? How have these
frequent rule changes affected market participants and consumers? How
has PJM sought to maintain stable investment signals in the face of
these changes?
8. Do you think PJM's capacity market is more effective at
delivering resource adequacy than other RTOs/ISOs' approaches would be
in PJM and, if so, why?
9. Are there alternatives to a mandatory capacity market construct
that should be considered, such as a residual capacity market construct
(e.g., MISO), enhanced use of self-supply mechanisms such as Fixed
Resource Requirement (FRR), or other mechanisms, including allowing
load-serving utilities to own generation, increased long-term
contracting by load-serving utilities, or other alternatives? To what
extent do the current PJM market rules allow for these alternatives?
10. Several states in PJM have public policy requirements that
drive resource entry and exit decisions. How does PJM work with the
states and the District of Columbia to identify and meet the region's
resource adequacy needs at just and reasonable rates? Has PJM studied
the effects of state public policy on either resource adequacy or
capacity market outcomes? What are the effects of state policies on
resource adequacy in PJM?
Panelists
Adam Keech, PJM, Vice President of Market Design and Economics
Joe Bowring, Monitoring Analytics, President and Independent
Market Monitor
Wendy Stark, PPL Corporation, Executive Vice President of
Utilities & Chief Legal Officer
Brian Tierney, FirstEnergy, Chairman, President, and CEO
Glen Thomas, PJM Power Providers Group, President
Marji Philips, LS Power, Senior Vice President of Wholesale
Market Policy
Scott Hallam, Boardwalk Pipelines, President and CEO (on
behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)).
12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m.: Lunch Break
1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: Panel 3: PJM States' Perspectives
This panel discussion between the Commission and state
representatives will focus on the status of resource adequacy, and the
role of states in achieving resource adequacy, in PJM.
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What should be the allocation of roles and responsibilities
between PJM and the states to ensure resource adequacy in the PJM
region? Please explain the role your state takes on with regard to the
procurement of capacity to
[[Page 24134]]
meet resource adequacy requirements, including with respect to
bilateral contracting, self-supply, and/or purchases from the PJM
capacity market. Do states in PJM have appropriate opportunities to
participate in PJM decisions regarding resource adequacy? Are there
different, or greater, responsibilities that states should assume to
ensure resource adequacy?
2. Is PJM's capacity market compatible with state public policy
requirements? Why or why not?
3. Do you believe consumers are treated fairly in the PJM capacity
market process? If so, why? If not, why not?
4. Are changes necessary to ensure that the PJM capacity market
process delivers resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
5. What barriers, if any, are there to PJM states assuming more
responsibility for resource adequacy via constructs like the Integrated
Resource Planning (IRP) model, a hybrid between the capacity market and
IRP model, or enhanced use of self-supply mechanisms such as FRR?
Should alternatives to the mandatory capacity market construct be
considered or does your state prefer retaining the existing construct?
6. Does your state currently have sufficient expertise on resource
adequacy mechanisms and resource adequacy modeling to meet the
challenge of resource adequacy without PJM's technical expertise, or
does your state need additional resources? If your state would need
additional resources, what types of resources would be required and
what are the benefits and costs of developing that technical expertise
compared with continuing to rely on PJM's expertise? Based on those
costs and benefits, would your state prefer to continue to rely on
PJM's technical expertise?
7. What state mechanisms, such as long-term bilateral contracts,
self-supply arrangements, or other approaches, exist to help ensure
that rates for procuring resources will be just and reasonable? Will
consumers have access to the information (transparency) to understand
their share of the costs for procuring adequate resources?
Panelists
Chairman Emile C. Thompson, Public Service Commission of the
District of Columbia, President of Organization of PJM States, Inc.
(OPSI)
Jacob Finkel, Office of the Governor of Pennsylvania, Deputy
Secretary of Policy
President Christine Guhl-Sadovy, New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities
Commissioner Kelsey Bagot, Virginia State Corporation
Commission
Commissioner Michael Richard, Maryland Public Service
Commission
Commissioner David Veleta, Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission
Commissioner Dennis Deters, Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio
2:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: 15-Minute Break
2:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Additional Perspectives on PJM's Path
Forward and the Future of Resource Adequacy in PJM
Panelists will offer their varied perspectives on the topics
discussed in the first two PJM-specific panels. Topics to be explored
during this panel may include reforms to the current PJM capacity
market design, potential alternatives to the existing mandatory
capacity market, the roles and interests of states and other entities
(e.g., cooperative and municipal systems) in achieving resource
adequacy, and how to ensure resource adequacy at reasonable costs for
consumers.
Panelists
Brian O. Lipman, Consumer Advocates of the PJM States (CAPS),
President
Brian George, Google, US Energy Markets, Senior Lead
Casey Roberts, Natural Resources Defense Council, Director of
RTO Advocacy
Michelle Bloodworth, America's Power, President and CEO
Denise Foster Cronin, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Vice
President of Federal and RTO Regulatory Affairs
Susan E. Bruce, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, PJM
Industrial Customer Coalition, Coalition of MISO Transmission
Customers, and American Forest & Paper Association, Counsel
3:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m.: June 4 Closing Remarks
Thursday, June 5, 2025
9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: Panel 5: MISO's Resource Adequacy Challenge
This panel discussion among the Commission, MISO, and MISO
stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy challenges specific to
MISO.
MISO faces the most immediate risk of falling below established
resource adequacy criteria compared to all other regions assessed by
NERC in its 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.\6\ According to
MISO's 2024 Regional Resource Assessment (RRA), MISO may need to add 17
gigawatts of new capacity each year for the next 20 years--more than
triple the recent average rate of 4.7 gigawatts per year--to reliably
meet future demand and policy goals.\7\ Although MISO's RRA expects
thermal resources and battery storage to account for the bulk of the
region's accredited capacity in the future, the capacity of variable
energy resources is expected to grow and contribute to an increasing
need for ramp capability.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See NERC, 2024 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Dec. 2024),
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf.
\7\ MISO, 2024 Regional Resource Assessment (Jan. 2025), https://wdeawebsite.blob.core.windows.net/usrfiles/documents/miso%202024%20regional%20resource%20assessment.pdf.
\8\ Id. at 6-9. The RRA is one of several periodic studies MISO
conducts to forecast how the mix of electricity-generating resources
in the MISO region could evolve going forward. In other studies,
MISO has modeled potential future scenarios where thermal resources
have a decreased role in providing accredited capacity. See, e.g.,
MISO, Futures Report Series 1A 75, 92 (Nov. 2023),
Series1A_Futures_Report630735.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in MISO in the near term
(e.g., over the next five years) and over the longer term (e.g., ten
years and beyond)?
a. Is MISO's resource adequacy construct delivering resource
adequacy in MISO?
b. What are the benefits and drawbacks to MISO's resource adequacy
construct and residual capacity auction?
2. How have the recent outcomes of MISO's capacity auctions
affected market participants and consumers in MISO? Do states and
stakeholders have confidence that the MISO capacity market will be
effective to achieve resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
3. How have the seasonal resource adequacy requirements and revised
capacity accreditation methods worked in MISO to date? Have they helped
MISO more accurately determine its resource adequacy needs? What issues
or challenges has MISO experienced in implementing a seasonal construct
and revising capacity accreditation, and how does MISO plan to address
those issues or challenges?
4. How does MISO establish its load and resource forecasts?
a. How does MISO integrate the load forecasts provided by load-
serving entities and electric distribution companies into their
planning reserve margin requirements? Does MISO verify the forecast
methodologies and accuracy of forecasts?
[[Page 24135]]
b. Have the assumptions driving load and resource forecasts changed
over time? If so, how?
c. How do the forecast models weight different inputs? Are some
assumptions more uncertain, important, or impactful than others?
d. How have the forecasts performed historically and are parties
considering any changes to forecasting models or processes? For
example, are you considering requiring demonstration of commercial
readiness from prospective new large load additions?
5. To what extent are barriers to entry (e.g., the interconnection
queue backlog, supply chain limitations, siting and permitting delays,
etc.) affecting resource adequacy in the MISO footprint?
6. To what extent does the availability of regional and
interregional transmission capability affect resource adequacy planning
in MISO? How can MISO better address the effect of transmission
capability on resource adequacy?
7. Would an alternative resource adequacy construct used by another
RTO/ISO be more effective at delivering resource adequacy in MISO? If
so, why? Are there alternatives to the current residual market
construct that should be considered?
8. What should be the allocation of roles and responsibilities
between MISO and the states to ensure resource adequacy in the MISO
region? How does MISO work with the states to identify and meet the
region's resource adequacy needs at just and reasonable rates? Has MISO
studied the effects of state public policy on either resource adequacy
or capacity market outcomes?
Panelists
Todd Ramey, MISO, Senior Vice President of Markets and Digital
Strategy
David Patton, Potomac Economics, President and MISO
Independent Market Monitor
Laura Beauchamp, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Vice President of
Business Operations and Strategy
Andrew Meyer, Ameren Missouri, Sr. Director of Energy
Management & Trading
Steven Lieberman, American Municipal Power Inc., Vice
President of Transmission & Regulatory Affairs
Todd Snitchler, Electric Power Supply Association, President
and CEO
Kelli Joseph, World Resources Institute, Senior Fellow
10:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m.: 15-Minute Break
11:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: Panel 6: MISO's Path Forward and the Future of
Resource Adequacy in MISO
This panel discussion among the Commission, state representatives,
and others will focus on the state of resource adequacy, and the role
of states in achieving resource adequacy, in MISO. The Commission will
explore approaches to address MISO's resource adequacy challenges, and
the benefits of and improvements to its resource adequacy construct, to
ensure MISO and states achieve resource adequacy.
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. How do MISO and state resource adequacy processes interact? Do
states in MISO have appropriate opportunities to participate in
decisions regarding resource adequacy? Are there different or greater
responsibilities that states should assume to ensure resource adequacy?
2. Do you believe consumers are treated fairly in the MISO capacity
market process? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Are changes necessary to ensure that the MISO capacity market
process delivers resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
4. Are there aspects of MISO's resource adequacy construct that may
result in inefficient price signals or create unnecessary resource
adequacy risks?
5. Could MISO ensure resource adequacy at a lower cost to consumers
through modifications to its existing resource adequacy construct? If
so, what are the modifications and what are the challenges or downsides
to implementing them?
6. Should MISO's capacity market model be replaced?
a. If MISO's capacity market model should be replaced, what should
replace it? Could an alternative resource adequacy program, like in SPP
and CAISO, or a more expansive capacity market construct, like in PJM,
NYISO, and ISO-NE, achieve resource adequacy at a lower cost than
MISO's resource adequacy construct? Would these alternative approaches
provide load-serving entities, states, and consumer advocates with the
necessary information to monitor their costs for capacity?
b. What are the potential tradeoffs and challenges of switching to
a different resource adequacy construct? What timeline would be needed
to determine or vet a replacement and implement it?
Panelists
Commissioner Marcus Hawkins, Wisconsin Public Service
Commission, Chair of the Organization of MISO States (OMS) Resource
Adequacy Committee
Chairman Doug Scott, Illinois Commerce Commission
Chairman James Huston, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
Commissioner Eric Skrmetta, Louisiana Public Service
Commission
Carrie Zalewski, American Clean Power Association, Vice
President of Transmission and Electricity Markets
Jennifer C. Easler, Iowa Department of Justice Office of
Consumer Advocate, Attorney
12:15 p.m.-1:15 p.m.: Lunch Break
1:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Panel 7: The Resource Adequacy Challenge in the
Northeast RTOs/ISOs
This panel discussion between the Commission, NYISO, ISO-NE, and
relevant stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy challenges
specific to NYISO and ISO-NE.
NYISO projects declining statewide resource margins and for the
system to approach a loss of load expectation of 1 day in 10 years by
2034.\9\ NYISO's resource adequacy forecast is heavily affected by the
assumption that approximately 6,400 MW of non-firm, gas-only generation
will not be available to serve loads during winter peak demand
periods.\10\ NYISO explains that decreasing, and even negative,
statewide system margins are a leading indicator of the system's
inability to reliably serve demand under normal operations while fully
maintaining operating reserves.\11\ NYISO also notes that the
development and commercialization of dispatchable emission-free
resources capable of providing sustained on-demand power and system
stability will be essential to achieving policy objectives while
maintaining a reliable electric grid.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NYISO, 2024 Reliability Needs Assessment 9 (Nov. 19, 2024),
nyiso.com/documents/20142/2248793/2024-RNA-Report.pdf/.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id. at 10.
\12\ NYISO, NYISO's 2024 Comprehensive Area Review of Resource
Adequacy 37-38 (Dec. 3, 2024), https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/67229043316834b1a60feba3/678584c131bec5c726bae51b_2024%20New%20York%20Comprehensive%20Area%20Review%20of%20Resource%20Adequacy%20PV.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO-NE, in comparison, states that it has procured or will procure
the requisite resources needed to adequately meet resource adequacy for
each year of the 2024-2028 study horizon.\13\ ISO-NE
[[Page 24136]]
predicts growing peak load through 2032 and identifies potential risks
to bulk power system reliability, but expects bulk power system
reliability and economic performance to improve over the next decade
because of planned transmission upgrades, an improved interconnection
process, development of renewable resources with energy storage,
imports from neighboring regions, fast-start and flexible ramping
resources, and energy efficiency/conservation measures.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ISO-NE, 2023 New England Comprehensive Area Review of
Resource Adequacy 8-10 (Dec. 5, 2023), https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/67229043316834b1a60feba3/67229043316834b1a61003df_2023-new-england-comprehensive-review-of-resource-adequacy.pdf.
\14\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in NYISO and ISO-NE in
the near term (e.g., over the next five years) and over the longer term
(e.g., ten years and beyond)?
a. What factors present the greatest uncertainty when projecting
future resource adequacy challenges?
b. Are the capacity market constructs delivering resource adequacy
in these RTOs/ISOs? Why or why not?
2. To what extent do uncertainties external to NYISO and ISO-NE--
such as natural gas supplies or infrastructure constraints, supply
chain limitations, and siting and permitting delays--affect resource
adequacy planning in the Northeast? How can NYISO and ISO-NE better
address those uncertainties?
3. How do NYISO and ISO-NE consider electric-gas coordination
issues in the context of resource adequacy planning and capacity
resource accreditation?
4. How will state public policy requirements change the resource
mix and expected seasonal or hourly demand patterns? Do state public
policy requirements create challenges for your regions in achieving
resource adequacy at just and reasonable rates?
5. How might your capacity markets be improved to meet the
challenge of resource adequacy?
6. Would an alternative resource adequacy construct used by another
RTO/ISO be more effective at delivering resource adequacy in your
regions? If so, why?
7. How do NYISO and ISO-NE work with their states to identify and
meet the region's resource adequacy needs and to ensure adequate
resources are procured at just and reasonable rates? How do NYISO and
ISO-NE work with their states when pursuing capacity market reforms to
meet the resource adequacy challenge at the lowest possible cost to
consumers? What distinct challenges must be overcome in a multi-state
RTO/ISO (ISO-NE) region relative to a single state ISO region (NYISO)?
Panelists
Emilie Nelson, NYISO, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer
Stephen George, ISO-NE, Vice President of System Operations
and Market Administration
Adam Evans, New York State Department of Public Service, Chief
of Wholesale and Clean Energy Markets
Chairman Philip L. Bartlett II, Maine Public Utilities
Commission
Commissioner Katie S. Dykes, Connecticut Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection
Michelle Gardner, NextEra Energy Resources, Executive Director
Northeast Region
Sarah Bresolin Silver, New England Power Pool, Chair
Pallas LeeVanSchaick, Potomac Economics, Vice President; ISO-
NE External Market Monitor; NYISO Market Monitoring Unit
2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: 15-Minute Break
2:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m.: Panel 8: RTOs/ISOs Without Capacity Markets
This panel discussion between the Commission, SPP, CAISO, and
relevant stakeholders will focus on resource adequacy programs in SPP
and CAISO and how they compare to capacity markets in the other RTOs/
ISOs.
In SPP, where each Load Responsible Entity must maintain adequate
capacity to meet its Resource Adequacy Requirement, SPP expects no
excess capacity to be available in summer 2027, and the planned reserve
margin to decline from 20% in summer 2024 to just 5% in summer 2029--a
5,950 MW deficiency.\15\ Over that period, SPP projects resource
retirements to outstrip new resource additions by a rate of roughly
two-to-one while net peak demand grows by roughly 2% annually.\16\ Most
projected retirements are coal and natural gas resources.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ SPP, 2024 SPP Resource Adequacy Report 4-5 (June 14, 2024),
2024 spp june resource adequacy report.pdf.
\16\ Id. at 6 & Table 1.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In California, the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) oversees a
resource adequacy construct to ensure jurisdictional load-serving
entities meet those requirements. The CPUC sets system-wide resource
adequacy requirements while CAISO sets local and flexible resource
adequacy requirements. In recent years, CAISO and the CPUC have
implemented regulatory and CAISO market changes to ensure that external
capacity resources procured to meet resource adequacy requirements are
delivered during peak net load hours.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ CAISO Department of Market Monitoring, 2023 Annual Report
on Market Issues & Performance 31-32 (July 29, 2024), 2023-annual-
report-on-market-issues-and-performance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions that panelists could be asked:
1. What is the state of resource adequacy in SPP and CAISO in the
near term (e.g., over the next five years) and over the longer term
(e.g., ten years and beyond)? What factors present the greatest
uncertainty when projecting future resource adequacy challenges?
2. Given load growth and generation entry and retirement forecasts,
what resource adequacy challenges does SPP's resource adequacy
construct face going forward? How does SPP's resource adequacy
construct perform compared to RTO/ISO-administered capacity markets?
3. Given load growth and generation entry and retirement forecasts,
what resource adequacy challenges does the CPUC's Resource Adequacy
program face going forward? How does California's Resource Adequacy
program perform compared to RTO/ISO-administered capacity markets?
4. How do the resource adequacy constructs employed by your RTO/ISO
ensure the availability of resources for resource adequacy, and can
they adapt to increased load growth? How does this compare to
attempting to meet these challenges through operation of an RTO/ISO-
administered capacity market?
5. How do SPP and CAISO work with states to identify and meet the
region's resource adequacy needs and to ensure adequate resources are
procured at just and reasonable rates? How do SPP and CAISO work with
their states when pursuing resource adequacy reforms to meet the
resource adequacy challenge at the lowest possible cost to consumers?
What distinct challenges must be overcome in a multi-state RTO/ISO
(SPP) region relative to a single state ISO region (CAISO)?
Panelists
Casey Cathey, SPP, Vice President of Engineering
Neil Millar, CAISO, Vice President of Transmission
Planning and Infrastructure Development
Chair Patrick O'Connell, New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission
Molly Sterkel, California Public Utilities Commission,
Director of Electric Supply, Planning and Costs in the Energy Division
[[Page 24137]]
Stacey Burbure, American Electric Power, Senior Vice
President of Transmission Business Development and Joint Ventures
Gillian Clegg, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Vice
President of Energy Policy and Procurement
Travis Kavulla, NRG, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
4:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Closing Remarks
[FR Doc. 2025-10353 Filed 6-5-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P