NESCOE

Protest and Comments on ISO-NE Winter Program Proposal

Legal Document

Dated: August 5, 2015

Posted in:

Authored by:

Download Resource Text A A A

VI.           Recommendations

Q 23:    In light of this discussion, what do you conclude with respect to the Winter Reliability Program as proposed by NEPOOL?

This package is an incremental update to the programs that have been used the past two winters. The ISO states that the Winter Reliability Program “has been proven to be a cost-effective interim means to assure fuel inventory” while the ISO completes the implementation of the full PfP market-based solution.[14]

As with previous versions of the Winter Reliability Program, the NEPOOL Proposal would remain focused on the objective of offering compensation to encourage additional fuel arrangements that in most winters are unlikely to be needed, and likely to be uneconomic. It would also continue to encourage additional dual fuel capability and winter demand response. As the ISO has stated, “the current program is, to the maximum extent possible, resource neutral.”[15]

These measures are focused on the objective of encouraging incremental capacity in the wintertime. The NEPOOL Proposal is a proven approach to encouraging fuel arrangements to provide insurance against extreme winter events, for the winter periods before PfP takes effect. The NEPOOL Proposal would be a sound and effective approach to addressing the ISO’s concern about winter fuel assurance at moderate cost.

Q 24:    Under the ISO Proposal, compensation is extended to additional resource types. What is the purpose of this, according to the ISO?

The ISO’s purpose in proposing to expand the resources eligible for Winter Reliability Program payments is apparently to have the program be more resource neutral and to “better approximat[e] the results of a market-based construct.”[16] This was also stated in the ISO’s request for rehearing of the Clarification Order:[17]

“In order to continue to improve program participation and resource neutrality, the ISO will commit to discuss with stakeholders ways in which the winter program could be expanded from prior versions to include payments to all resources that can supply the region with fuel assurance; in other words, ISO-NE will work to enhance the current program structure to compensate resources such as coal and nuclear units in addition to the oil, LNG and demand resources that have participated in the past. This expansion would more closely resemble a market-based solution in terms of being available to a majority of resources, while meeting the objective of ensuring fuel adequacy in a targeted, efficient, time-limited manner.”

Q 25:    Is the ISO Proposal based on the same fundamental objective as prior Winter Reliability Programs – to enhance reliability by encouraging incremental fuel arrangements?

This is not clearly stated in the ISO’s filing letter. The ISO suggests its proposal is the same as the NEPOOL proposal, with differences having to do with eligibility and associated costs:

“While the ISO and NEPOOL concur that a winter reliability program is necessary for the next few winters, and agree on many of the design features, they do not agree on the types of resources that should be eligible to participate in the program.”[18]

“In sum, the ISO and NEPOOL agree on the need for a winter program and the inclusion of oil- and LNG-fired resources within that program; in fact, the proposals are identical with respect to those two resource types. The difference between the proposals relates to the inclusion of other types of resources, and the related costs.”[19]

However, the ISO Proposal does not appear to be based on the narrow objective stated in its filing letter and the objective pursued by prior Winter Reliability Programs, which is adhered to in the NEPOOL Proposal: incremental capacity during the winter period. While the new objective is not clearly stated, it is apparently to compensate all resources that have “on-site fuel.”[20]

The objective of enhancing reliability by encouraging incremental fuel arrangements has been dropped – the ISO Proposal includes provisions that are not bound by, and do not contribute to, that objective.

Q 26:    Does the ISO Proposal, with its revised objective, continue to compensate all resources that were included in prior Winter Reliability Programs consistent with the objective of the prior programs?

The ISO Proposal eliminates compensation for incremental winter demand response “due to the incompatibility of demand response with the Program’s fuel assurance objective”[21] and because ISO considers demand response “outside the program’s objective of ensuring fuel adequacy.”[22]

Q 27:    What do you conclude with regard to the Winter Reliability Program as proposed by ISO?

The ISO Proposal would increase the cost of the Winter Reliability Program, but it would not result in additional capacity available in the wintertime. The ISO Proposal would result in many sellers receiving additional compensation without taking on any substantial additional obligations or costs, or providing any additional service.

Q 28:    Please explain why the ISO Proposal will not lead to any incremental fuel assurance or capacity.

The ISO does not assert that its proposal would result in additional capacity available during the wintertime, nor am I aware of any work by stakeholders or from other sources suggesting that incremental capacity would be made available from the additional resource types as a result of incentives offered through the Winter Reliability Program. These resources simply do not face fuel decisions that the program’s incentives are at all likely to influence.

For example, the ISO Proposal would make compensation available to 4,041 MW of nuclear capacity. However, nuclear units run baseload, and their fuel needs are predictable and steady over time. Nuclear units typically refuel every 18 months during off-peak times, and the outages are coordinated with the ISO approximately 6 months in advance;[23] the Winter Reliability Program compensation would not influence fuel planning for a nuclear unit. Similarly, coal and biomass resources, also included in the ISO Proposal, are unlikely to modify their fuel arrangements in a manner that would result in incremental capacity as a result of the incentives offered through the Winter Reliability Program (they might, however, modify fuel arrangements to ensure maximum payments under the program).

Q 29:    Please describe the potential increase in cost that would result from the ISO Proposal.

Based on the ISO’s estimated quantities and estimated compensation rate of $12.9 per equivalent barrel of oil,[24] the ISO Proposal would increase the maximum cost exposure by $35 million per year, or over 50% (Table 1). In a cold winter during which the oil and LNG stocks are drawn down such that the program only pays for 25 percent of the maximum inventory quantity for these resources, the cost of the program for these resources would be $16.5 million, while the other resources compensated under the ISO Proposal would likely still receive close to the $34.8 million maximum amount, more than tripling the total cost of the program.

Table 1: Estimated Cost of Winter Reliability Program Alternatives
Total MWEquiv. bbl (maximum)Payment Rate $/bblMax. Cost Exposure    ($ mil.)Equiv. bbl(cold winter, @ 25%)Total cost, cold winter         ($ mil.)
Current program resources:
Oil10,7784.10$12.9$52.891.03$13.22
LNG[6 Bcf]1.00$12.9$12.900.25$3.23
Total5.10$65.79 1.28$16.45
Additional resources under ISO Proposal:
Nuclear4,0411.62$12.9$20.90(no changes)(no changes)
Coal2,0020.80$12.9$10.32
Biomass5770.23$12.9$2.97
Hydro2,9410.05$12.9$0.65
Total3.30$34.83  $34.83
Total Cost: Current plus Additional Resources$100.62 $51.28
Sources: Total MW and equivalent bbl: Gillespie Testimony, p. 17; payment rate: 2015-2016 Winter Program Payment Rate, memo from ISO New England to NEPOOL Members, July 15, 2015; equivalent bbl under moderate conditions: Wilson assumption. Due to the small quantity of demand response, their costs were excluded from this summary.

 

The additional cost under the ISO Proposal amounts to $0.43/kW-mo for the 6,620 MW of nuclear, coal, biomass and other additional resources (excluding hydro) that would receive payments. This compares to the FCA payment rates for 2016/2017 (from FCA 7) of $2.744/kW-mo for resources in Rest of Pool and Maine, $2.883/kW-mo for Connecticut, and $6.661/kW-mo for existing resources in the NEMA/Boston zone.[25] 

1 … 15 16 17 18 19

Document Source Citations

  1.  

    [1]     NESCOE filed a motion to intervene in this docket on July 17, 2015.

    [2]     Capitalized terms not defined in this filing are intended to have the meaning given to such terms in the ISO-NE Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff.

    [3]     Under Section 11.1.5. of the Participants Agreement, “when NEPOOL supports by at least a 60% Vote of the Participants Committee a Market Rule change that is different than what is being proposed by ISO-NE,” ISO-NE is required to make a “jump ball” filing whereby both the ISO-NE and NEPOOL proposal are filed pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) and are considered by the Commission “at the same time and on the same legal footing[.]” July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1a (the “NEPOOL Filing Letter”), at 3-4. The NEPOOL Filing Letter describes the legal standard under a jump ball filing in greater detail.

    [4]     Rehearing Request of ISO New England Inc., Docket No. ER14-2407-003 (filed Feb. 19, 2015) (“ISO-NE Rehearing Request”), at 12; see also Letter from Gordon van Welie, ISO-NE President and CEO, to Judith Judson, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, July 6, 2015 (“ISO-NE Letter to DOER”), at 3 (stating that past winter programs “have proven to be a cost-effective short-term solution to help keep the lights on in New England during the winter”), available at www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/07/iso_response_doer_info_request_july2015.pdf.

    [5]     ISO New England Inc., Order Accepting Tariff Revisions, 148 FERC ¶ 61,179 (2014) (“September 2014 Order”) at P 40.

    [6]     July 15 Filing at Attachment I-1a (“ISO-NE Filing Letter”) at 9.

    [7]     Order Granting Rehearing, 151 FERC ¶ 61,052 (2015) (the “Rehearing Order”) at P 17.

    [8]     See ISO New England Inc., Winter 2013-14 Reliability Program, Docket No. ER13-1851-000 (filed June 28, 2013) (“Winter Program I Filing”), at 7; Motion to Intervene and Comments of the New England States Committee on Electricity, Docket No. ER13-1851-000 (filed July 13, 2013) (“NESCOE Winter Program I Comments”), at 10. See also Winter Program I Filing at 5 (“As a transition between the [winter reliability program] and the FCM performance incentives project, the ISO intends to propose a scaled-down version of the performance incentives project to purchase a fuel-neutral, winter-based reliability product for the winters of 2014-15 through 2017-18.”).

    [9]     ISO New England Inc., Winter 2014-15 Reliability Program (Part 1 of 2), Docket No. ER14-2407-000 (filed July 11, 2014) (“Winter Program II Filing”), at 8.

    [10]    See ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 2, 8-12.

    [11]    See Section IV.B below.

    [12]    September 2014 Order at P 43 (emphasis added).

    [13]    See NEPOOL Filing Letter at 2; ISO-NE Filing Letter at 3-4.

    [14]    See ISO-NE Filing Letter at 4; see also ISO New England Inc., Fuel Assurance Status Report, Docket Nos. AD13-7-000 and AD14-8-000 (Feb. 18, 2015) (“Fuel Assurance Status Report”), at 5, available at http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/02/Final_for_Filing__Fuel_Assurance_Report.pdf. As NESCOE explained in comments on the Fuel Assurance Status Report, although PfP “is expected to influence generator performance and responsiveness, it is not expected to solve the root cause of New England’s fundamental energy infrastructure problem and associated exorbitant price increases. . . . [and] despite over a decade of conversation in New England about gas and electric markets and the potential development of market mechanisms to address infrastructure inadequacies, not one has been proposed that is expected to solve the problems caused by the region’s natural gas constraints in a cost-effective way.” See Comments of the New England States Committee on Electricity, Docket Nos. AD13-7-000 and AD14-8-000 (filed Mar. 20, 2015), at 8, citing to Fuel Assurance Status Report at 4. See also ISO-NE Letter to DOER at 1-2 (stating that PfP “will improve resource performance, but it will not necessarily result in added natural gas pipeline” and will not address significant pricing issues arising from pipeline constraints). Despite implementation of PfP, ISO-NE has identified natural gas pipeline constraints as a continued risk to reliable operations and escalating prices. See, e.g., Gordon Van Welie, ISO-NE, State of the Grid: Managing a System in Transition, Presentation and Remarks, Jan. 21, 2015, at 35 (“Reliability will be threatened, and prices will spike, until the effects of the natural gas pipeline constraints are alleviated with additional investments in fuel infrastructure[.]”), available at www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/01/stateofgrid_ppt_remarks_01212015.pdf; ISO New England, 2015 Regional Electricity Outlook, at 18 (“Without significant expansion of natural gas pipeline and LNG storage serving New England, the impacts on reliability, price, and emissions are likely to continue.”), available at http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/02/2015_reo.pdf; Fuel Assurance Status Report at 4. The New England states have been closely engaged in collaborative efforts to address regional energy challenges. See, e.g., New England Governors, Actions for a Cleaner, More Reliable and More Affordable Energy Future, Apr. 23, 2015, available at http://www.nescoe.com/uploads/6_State_Action_Plan_FINAL_4-22-15_1-5.40_pf.pdf; New England Governors’ Statement: Regional Cooperation on Energy Infrastructure, Apr. 23, 2015, available at http://www.nescoe.com/uploads/6_State_Joint_Statement_FINAL_4-22-15_12-3.36pm_w-sealsf.pdf.

    [15]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 4.

    [16]    Winter Program II Filing at 5. See also Fuel Assurance Status Report at 7 (“The region relied heavily on oil-fired generators [in the 2013-2014 winter], burning through 1.6 million of the 1.9 million megawatt-hours of oil procured through the program.”).

    [17]    See ISO-NE Filing Letter at 4-5; NEPOOL Filing Letter at 7; Winter Program II Filing at 11.

    [18]    Winter Program II Filing at 11-14.

    [19]    See NEPOOL Filing Letter at 7.

    [20]    September 2014 Order at P 40.

    [21]    ISO New England Inc., 150 FERC ¶ 61,029 (2015) (the “Clarification Order”) at P 10.

    [22]    ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 2.

    [23]    Id. at 11.

    [24]    Id. at 12.

    [25]    Id. at 13.

    [26]    Market-Based Approach to Winter Reliability: Exelon, Entergy and NextEra, NEPOOL Markets Committee, April 13, 2015.

    [27]    Rehearing Order at P 17 (footnote omitted).

    [28]    July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1b, Prepared Testimony of Jeffrey W. Bentz in Support of the New England Power Pool’s Proposed Winter Reliability Program (“Bentz Testimony”), at 21.

    [29]    NEPOOL Filing Letter at 9.

    [30]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 5.

    [31]    See NEPOOL Filing Letter at 9.

    [32]    NESCOE, Winter Program: New England States’ Preferred Approach, NEPOOL Markets Committee, May 2015, available at http://www.nescoe.com/uploads/MC_Winter_ProposalF.pdf.

    [33]    See Bentz Testimony at 23 (“A market participant from each of the six NEPOOL sectors joined the proposal in support: Conservation Services Group (Alternative Resources Sector), TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd (Generation Sector), the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (End User Sector), the United Illuminating Company (Transmission Sector), the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company (Publicly Owned Entity Sector), and Energy America, LLC. (an affiliate of Direct Energy) (Supplier Sector).”).

    [34]    NEPOOL Filing Letter at 10; Bentz Testimony at 21, 23.

    [35]    NEPOOL Filing Letter at 11.

    [36]    Id.

    [37]    See ISO-NE Filing Letter at 11.

    [38]    NEPOOL Filing Letter at 14.

    [39]    Id. at 11-14.

    [40]    July 15 Filing at Attachment I-1b, Testimony of Andrew G. Gillespie in Support of ISO New England Inc. (“Gillespie Testimony”), at 15; see ISO-NE Filing Letter at 6.

    [41]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 11; NEPOOL Filing Letter at 13.

    [42]    Testimony of James F. Wilson, attached hereto as Attachment A (“Wilson Testimony”), at 9, 20.

    [43]   See id. at 4, 9, 19-20.

    [44]    ISO-NE Letter to DOER at 3. See also ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 12 (Winter Program II “has been proven to be a cost-effective interim means to assure fuel inventory while the ISO completes development and implementation of the full PFP market-based solution.”).

    [45]    ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 4. See also ISO-NE Filing Letter at 4-5.

    [46]    ISO-NE Letter to DOER at 3.

    [47]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 6, 12.

    [48]    Wilson Testimony at 15.

    [49]    Id. at 15-16 (footnote omitted).

    [50]    July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1d, Testimony of Alan A. Trotta, Director of Wholesale Power Contracts for UIL Holdings Corporation (“Trotta Testimony”), at 3.

    [51]    Id.

    [52]    July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1e, Affidavit of Brian E. Forshaw, NEPOOL Participants Committee Publicly Owned Entity Sector Vice-Chair, at 6. See also id. at 7.

    [53]    Bentz Testimony at 19-20.

    [54]    July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1c, Testimony of John Flumerfelt, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Calpine Corporation (“Flumerfelt Testimony”), at 4-5.

    [55]    July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1f, Affidavit of Herb Healy, Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs, EnerNOC, Inc., at 4.

    [56]    Wilson Testimony at 15, 19.

    [57]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 12 (emphasis added).

    [58]    See Wilson Testimony at 3.

    [59]    Id. at 19.

    [60]    Id. at 20.

    [61]    September 2014 Order at P 43.

    [62]    Id. (emphasis added).

    [63]    Trotta Testimony at 2.

    [64]    Wilson Testimony at 20.

    [65]    Id. at 14.

    [66]    See Gillespie Testimony at 17.

    [67]    Bentz Testimony at 16 (emphasis added).

    [68]    Id. at 20.

    [69]    Trotta Testimony at 2.

    [70]    See ISO-NE Letter to DOER at 3; ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 4, 12; ISO-NE Filing Letter at 4-5.

    [71]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 6, 12.

    [72]    Id. at 9.

    [73]    While some might argue for the exclusion of LNG and demand response resources from Winter Program III under the same rationale, these resources have proven to make limited but cost-effective contributions to the Winter Reliability Programs and, unlike the Newly Eligible Resources, they have a more direct nexus to gas pipeline constraints which motivated the advent of these programs.

    [74]    See September 2014 Order at P 43; Rehearing Order at P 17. See Section IV.C below explaining why the Rehearing Order did not require ISO-NE to file its “expanded” program.

    [75]    ISO-NE Filing Letter at 12.

    [76]    Wilson Testimony at 8; see also id. at 9.

    [77]    Id. at 8, 18.

    [78]    Id. at 18-19.

    [79]    Trotta Testimony at 4. See also Bentz Testimony at 22 (“NESCOE, along with other stakeholders, concluded that the ISO-NE Proposal was no more market-based than the Winter Program II, and were concerned that the additional costs of the ISO-NE proposal provided no identifiable benefits.”).

    [80]    Bentz Testimony at 12.

    [81]    Flumerfelt Testimony at 3.

    [82]    Wilson Testimony at 10-11 (emphasis in original).

    [83]    See September 2014 Order at P 43.

    [84]    Winter Program II Filing at 8.

    [85]    Winter Program I Filing at 7. See also id. at 5 (“As a transition between the Winter Reliability Project and the FCM performance incentives project, the ISO intends to propose a scaled-down version of the performance incentives project to purchase a fuel-neutral, winter-based reliability product for the winters of 2014-15 through 2017-18.”).

    [86]    NESCOE Winter Program I Comments at 10.

    [87]    Motion to Intervene and Comments of the New England States Committee on Electricity, Docket Nos. ER14-2407-000 et al. (filed Aug. 1, 2014), at 5.

    [88]    Motion for Leave to Answer and Limited Answer of the New England States Committee on Electricity, Docket No. ER14-2407-003 (filed Mar. 4, 2015), at 3.

    [89]    ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 8.

    [90]    Id. at 2, 8-12.

    [91]    Wilson Testimony at 9-10.

    [92]    Id.

    [93]    Id. at 10. See also id. at 20 (a market-based approach “would likely be ineffective and costly.”).

    [94]    Indeed, one way to erode support for genuine market-based approaches is to label an approach market-based and, through it, force consumers to pay more for resources with no apparent incremental value.

    [95]    Memorandum from ISO-NE to NEPOOL Members, 2015-2016 Winter Program Payment Rate, July 15, 2015, available at http://www.iso-ne.com/markets-operations/markets/winter-program-payment-rate.

    [96]    Wilson Testimony at 16-17.

    [97]    Id.

    [98]    Gillespie Testimony at 18.

    [99]    As explained in the Wilson Testimony, these are the expected costs assuming 75% of the oil inventory and LNG contract amounts are used. In a cold winter during which the oil and LNG stocks are drawn down such that the program only pays for 25% of the maximum inventory quantity for these resources, the cost of the program for these resources would be roughly $16.5 million, while the other resources compensated under the ISO-NE Proposal would likely still receive close to the $34.8 million maximum amount. See Wilson Testimony at 16-17.

    [100]   Prior to the July 15 Filing, ISO-NE had not provided an estimate of program costs or an assumed compensation rate for subsequent winters. The $14 assumed rate was based on an estimate at the time of what the expected payment rate might be for subsequent winters.

    [101]   Bentz Testimony at 16.

    [102]   Id. (emphasis in original)

    [103]   Id.

    [104]   Wilson Testimony at 17-18.

    [105]   Id.

    [106]   See id. at 18.

    [107]   Bentz Testimony at 18.

    [108]   ISO-NE Filing Letter at 6, citing to ISO-NE Rehearing Request at 12-13.

    [109]   Rehearing Order at P 17 (footnote omitted).

    [110]   Id. (emphasis added)

    [111]   Id.

    [112]   See Bentz Testimony at 13 (emphasis in original), citing to Winter Reliability Solution: Committee Discussion, presentation by Andrew Gillespie, Principal Analyst, Market Development, ISO-NE, March 10-11, 2015 NEPOOL Markets Committee Meeting, at Slide 7; Winter Reliability Solution: Committee Discussion, presentation by Andrew Gillespie, Principal Analyst, Market Development, ISO-NE, Jan. 13-14, 2015 NEPOOL Markets Committee Meeting, at Slide 7; Winter Reliability Solution: Winter Periods Prior to June 1, 2018, presentation by Andrew Gillespie, Principal Analyst, Market Development, ISO-NE, Nov. 11-12, 2014 NEPOOL Markets Committee Meeting, at Slide 6.

    [113]   Wilson Testimony at 13.

    [114]   See id. at 18.

    [115]   Winter Program II Filing at 8.

    [116]   See ISO-NE Filing Letter at 11; Gillespie Testimony at 17-18.

    [117]   Gillespie Testimony at 18; Wilson Testimony at 16-17.

    [118]   NEPOOL Filing Letter at 18.

    [119]   Id.

    [120]   See July 15 Filing at Attachment N-1g, Tabulation of NEPOOL Participants Committee Votes Taken on the ISO-NE and NEPOOL Proposals. Those participants referenced above— Dominion, Entergy, NextEra, GDF SUEZ, and Dynegy—own assets that rely on Newly Eligible Resources, specifically nuclear, coal, or pumped hydro.

    [121]   See NEPOOL Filing Letter at 18.

    [122]   See id., quoting Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,083 (2008) at P 172 (“While stakeholder support does not alone prove that the NEPOOL Proposal is just and reasonable and preferable, ‘stakeholder consensus is an important factor to be considered in reviewing the justness and reasonableness of a rate design.’”).

    [123]   September 2014 Order at P 33.

    [124]   Winter Program II Filing at 5-6.

    [125]   About FERC, Guiding Principles, available at http://www.ferc.gov/about/about.asp.

Winter Reliability Program 2015-2018 – Jump Ball Filing

 
July 15, 2015
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
Honorable Kimberly D.

Read more

Comments on ISO-NE Fuel Assurance Status Report

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ISO New England Inc.
Docket Nos.

Read more

Comments to FERC on the Winter Reliability Program

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ISO New England Inc.
Docket No.

Read more